{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62023cj0696", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62023cj0696)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-11-02", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:f6410a", "proof": "sha256:952416cfd3cac5f1ee7c7dc5ec4827adae6efdfabdaba00cc20374a89714ac90", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:62023cj0696", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141" ], "kind": "front_matter" }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "I.   Legal context and background to the disputes", "paragraphs": [ "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "A.   Decision 2022/329", "paragraphs": [ "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "B.   Decision 2014/145, as amended, in particular, by Decision 2022/329", "paragraphs": [ "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "C.   Regulation No 269/2014", "paragraphs": [ "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "D.   The decision and regulation at issue (Cases C‑696/23 P and C‑35/24 P)", "paragraphs": [ "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "A.   Joinder", "paragraphs": [ "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "B.   The applications to intervene", "paragraphs": [ "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "IV.   The appeals", "paragraphs": [ "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "A.   Grounds of appeal alleging infringement of the (g) criterion by the General Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674", "para_675", "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694", "para_695", "para_696", "para_697", "para_698", "para_699", "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703", "para_704", "para_705", "para_706", "para_707", "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716", "para_717", "para_718", "para_719", "para_720", "para_721", "para_722", "para_723", "para_724", "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730", "para_731", "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739", "para_740", "para_741", "para_742", "para_743", "para_744", "para_745", "para_746", "para_747", "para_748", "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757", "para_758", "para_759", "para_760", "para_761", "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769", "para_770", "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783", "para_784", "para_785", "para_786", "para_787", "para_788", "para_789", "para_790", "para_791", "para_792", "para_793", "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801", "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812", "para_813", "para_814", "para_815", "para_816", "para_817", "para_818", "para_819", "para_820", "para_821", "para_822", "para_823", "para_824", "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830", "para_831", "para_832", "para_833", "para_834", "para_835", "para_836", "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840", "para_841", "para_842", "para_843", "para_844", "para_845", "para_846", "para_847", "para_848", "para_849", "para_850", "para_851", "para_852", "para_853", "para_854", "para_855", "para_856", "para_857", "para_858", "para_859", "para_860", "para_861", "para_862", "para_863", "para_864", "para_865", "para_866", "para_867", "para_868", "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872", "para_873", "para_874", "para_875", "para_876", "para_877", "para_878", "para_879", "para_880", "para_881", "para_882", "para_883", "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887", "para_888", "para_889", "para_890", "para_891", "para_892", "para_893", "para_894", "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898", "para_899", "para_900", "para_901", "para_902", "para_903", "para_904", "para_905", "para_906", "para_907", "para_908", "para_909", "para_910", "para_911", "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915", "para_916", "para_917", "para_918", "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922", "para_923", "para_924", "para_925", "para_926", "para_927", "para_928", "para_929", "para_930", "para_931", "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935", "para_936", "para_937", "para_938", "para_939", "para_940", "para_941", "para_942", "para_943", "para_944", "para_945", "para_946", "para_947", "para_948", "para_949", "para_950", "para_951", "para_952", "para_953", "para_954", "para_955", "para_956", "para_957", "para_958", "para_959", "para_960", "para_961", "para_962", "para_963", "para_964", "para_965", "para_966", "para_967", "para_968", "para_969", "para_970", "para_971", "para_972", "para_973", "para_974", "para_975", "para_976", "para_977", "para_978", "para_979", "para_980", "para_981", "para_982", "para_983", "para_984", "para_985", "para_986", "para_987", "para_988", "para_989", "para_990", "para_991", "para_992", "para_993", "para_994", "para_995", "para_996", "para_997", "para_998", "para_999", "para_1000", "para_1001", "para_1002", "para_1003", "para_1004", "para_1005", "para_1006", "para_1007", "para_1008", "para_1009", "para_1010", "para_1011", "para_1012", "para_1013", "para_1014", "para_1015", "para_1016", "para_1017", "para_1018", "para_1019", "para_1020", "para_1021", "para_1022", "para_1023", "para_1024", "para_1025", "para_1026", "para_1027", "para_1028", "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031", "para_1032", "para_1033", "para_1034", "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037", "para_1038", "para_1039", "para_1040", "para_1041", "para_1042", "para_1043", "para_1044", "para_1045", "para_1046", "para_1047", "para_1048", "para_1049", "para_1050", "para_1051", "para_1052", "para_1053", "para_1054", "para_1055", "para_1056", "para_1057", "para_1058", "para_1059", "para_1060", "para_1061", "para_1062", "para_1063", "para_1064", "para_1065", "para_1066", "para_1067", "para_1068", "para_1069", "para_1070", "para_1071", "para_1072", "para_1073", "para_1074", "para_1075", "para_1076", "para_1077", "para_1078", "para_1079", "para_1080", "para_1081", "para_1082", "para_1083", "para_1084", "para_1085", "para_1086", "para_1087", "para_1088", "para_1089", "para_1090", "para_1091", "para_1092", "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095", "para_1096", "para_1097", "para_1098", "para_1099", "para_1100", "para_1101", "para_1102", "para_1103", "para_1104", "para_1105", "para_1106", "para_1107", "para_1108", "para_1109", "para_1110", "para_1111", "para_1112", "para_1113", "para_1114", "para_1115", "para_1116", "para_1117", "para_1118", "para_1119", "para_1120", "para_1121", "para_1122", "para_1123", "para_1124", "para_1125", "para_1126", "para_1127", "para_1128", "para_1129", "para_1130", "para_1131", "para_1132", "para_1133", "para_1134", "para_1135", "para_1136", "para_1137", "para_1138", "para_1139", "para_1140", "para_1141", "para_1142", "para_1143", "para_1144", "para_1145", "para_1146", "para_1147", "para_1148", "para_1149", "para_1150", "para_1151", "para_1152", "para_1153", "para_1154", "para_1155", "para_1156", "para_1157", "para_1158", "para_1159", "para_1160", "para_1161", "para_1162", "para_1163", "para_1164", "para_1165", "para_1166", "para_1167", "para_1168", "para_1169", "para_1170", "para_1171", "para_1172", "para_1173", "para_1174", "para_1175", "para_1176", "para_1177", "para_1178", "para_1179", "para_1180", "para_1181", "para_1182", "para_1183", "para_1184", "para_1185", "para_1186", "para_1187", "para_1188", "para_1189", "para_1190", "para_1191", "para_1192", "para_1193", "para_1194", "para_1195", "para_1196", "para_1197", "para_1198", "para_1199", "para_1200", "para_1201", "para_1202", "para_1203", "para_1204", "para_1205", "para_1206", "para_1207", "para_1208", "para_1209", "para_1210", "para_1211", "para_1212", "para_1213", "para_1214", "para_1215", "para_1216", "para_1217", "para_1218", "para_1219", "para_1220", "para_1221", "para_1222", "para_1223", "para_1224", "para_1225", "para_1226", "para_1227", "para_1228", "para_1229", "para_1230", "para_1231", "para_1232", "para_1233", "para_1234", "para_1235", "para_1236", "para_1237", "para_1238", "para_1239", "para_1240", "para_1241" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "V.   Conclusion", "paragraphs": [ "para_1242", "para_1243", "para_1244" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "VI.   Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_1245", "para_1246", "para_1247", "para_1248", "para_1249", "para_1250", "para_1251" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby:", "paragraphs": [ "para_1252", "para_1253", "para_1254", "para_1255", "para_1256", "para_1257", "para_1258", "para_1259", "para_1260", "para_1261", "para_1262", "para_1263", "para_1264", "para_1265", "para_1266", "para_1267", "para_1268", "para_1269", "para_1270", "para_1271", "para_1272", "para_1273", "para_1274", "para_1275", "para_1276", "para_1277", "para_1278", "para_1279", "para_1280", "para_1281" ], "kind": "operative" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "62023CJ0696", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "26 March 2026 (\n *1\n )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "Table of Contents", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "I. Legal context and background to the disputes", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "A. Decision 2022/329", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "B. Decision 2014/145, as amended, in particular, by Decision 2022/329", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "C. Regulation No 269/2014", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "D. The decision and regulation at issue (Cases C‑696/23 P and C‑35/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "E. The acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P and C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "1. The initial acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23/P, C‑711/23 P and C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "2. The first maintaining acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23/P, C‑711/23 P and C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "3. The second maintaining acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23 P and C‑711/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "II. The actions before the General Court and the judgments under appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "A. The action before the General Court and the first judgment under appeal (Case C‑696/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "B. The action before the General Court and the second judgment under appeal (Case C‑704/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "C. The action before the General Court and the third judgment under appeal (Case C‑711/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "D. The action before the General Court and the fourth judgment under appeal (Case C‑35/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "E. The action before the General Court and the fifth judgment under appeal (Case C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "III. Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought by the parties to the appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "A. Joinder", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "B. The applications to intervene", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "C. Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "1. Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "2. Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "3. Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑711/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "4. Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "5. Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "D. The applications to reopen the oral part of the procedure", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "1. The application to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "2. The application to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑711/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "IV. The appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "A. Grounds of appeal alleging infringement of the (g) criterion by the General Court", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "1. Arguments alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the expression ‘providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "(a) The second ground of appeal and the first part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and the second ground of appeal and the first part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "(1) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "(2) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "(b) The second complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the first to third parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the first complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the seventh ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "(1) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "(2) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "2. Grounds of appeal alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "(a) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "(b) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "(1) Admissibility of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "(2) Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "(i) The first ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the third part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the fourth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "(ii) The first and second complaints in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the second ground of appeal and the first part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "B. Grounds of appeal alleging that the General Court infringed the principle of proportionality and Article 52(1) of the Charter, and the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "1. The third ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, alleging an infringement of the first sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "(a) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "(b) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "2. The fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P and the third ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, which allege an infringement of the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter, and the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "(a) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "(b) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "(1) Admissibility of the first, second and fourth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "(2) Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "(i) Preliminary observations", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "(ii) Analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "3. The second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "(a) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "(b) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "C. Grounds of appeal alleging errors of law by the General Court in its analysis of the pleas of illegality in respect of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "1. The third ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "(a) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "(b) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "2. The second part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "(a) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "(b) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "D. Grounds of appeal alleging errors of law by the General Court in its analysis of the principle of equal treatment", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "1. Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "2. Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "E. Grounds of appeal alleging errors of law and distortions of facts and evidence by the General Court as regards whether the constituent elements of the (g) criterion were satisfied in respect of the five appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "1. Alleged errors of law and distortions by the General Court in its analysis of whether the economic sectors in which the second to fifth appellants operate or operated constitute a substantial source of revenue for the Government of the Russian Federation", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "(a) The second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "(1) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "(2) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "(i) Admissibility of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and of the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "(ii) Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "(b) The first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second part of the first ground of appeal and the fourth to sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the second and third parts of the first ground of appeal, the first part and the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the fifth and sixth grounds of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "(1) The first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "(i) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "(ii) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "(2) The second part of the first ground of appeal and the fourth to sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "(i) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "(ii) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "(3) The second and third parts of the first ground of appeal and the first part and the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "(i) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "(ii) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "(4) The fifth and sixth grounds of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "(i) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "(ii) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "2. Alleged errors of law and distortions by the General Court as regards the second appellant’s ‘influence’ and the first and fifth appellants’ ‘involvement’, within the meaning of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "(a) The first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "(1) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "(2) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "(b) The third complaint in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "(1) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "(2) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "(c) Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "(1) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "(2) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "(i) Admissibility", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "(ii) Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "F. The second part of the first ground of appeal and the fifth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the third head of claim in Case C‑704/23 P, the fifth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the first ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "1. The second part of the first ground of appeal and the fifth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "(a) The second part of the first ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "(1) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "(2) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "(b) The fifth ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "2. The third head of claim in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "3. The fifth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "4. The first ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "(a) Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "(b) Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "V. Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "VI. Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "(Appeal – Restrictive measures taken in view of the military aggression against Ukraine – Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 1(1)(e) and Article 2(1)(g) – Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Article 3(1)(g) – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Concept of ‘leading businesspersons involved in economic …", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "In Joined Cases C‑696/23 P, C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P, C‑35/24 P and C‑111/24 P,", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "FIVE APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought, as regards Cases C‑696/23 P and C‑704/23 P, on 16 November 2023, as regards Case C‑711/23 P, on 22 November 2023, as regards Case C‑35/24 P, on 18 January 2024 and, as regards Case C‑111/24 P, on 8 February 2024,", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy , residing in Ekaterinburg (Russia), represented by A. Egger, P. Goeth, G. Lansky and E. Steiner, Rechtsanwälte (C‑696/23 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "Tigran Khudaverdyan , residing in Moscow (Russia), represented initially by F. Bélot, T. Bontinck, M. Brésart and J. Goffin, and subsequently by F. Bélot, T. Bontinck, and J. Goffin, avocats (C‑704/23 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "Viktor Filippovich Rashnikov , residing in Magnitogorsk (Russia), represented by M. Campa, avvocato, M. Moretto, avocat, M. Pirovano, avvocata, D. Rovetta, avocat, and V. Villante, avvocato (C‑711/23 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin , residing in Moscow, represented by A. Bass, avocat, M. Campa, avvocato, M. Moretto and D. Rovetta, avocats, and V. Villante, avvocato (C‑35/24 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "German Khan , residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by A. Bass and T. Marembert, avocats (C‑111/24 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "appellants,", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "the other parties to the proceedings being:", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Council of the European Union , represented initially by B. Driessen, P. Mahnič, P. Pecheux, V. Piessevaux, J. Rurarz, L. Vétillard and S. Van Overmeire, and subsequently by B. Driessen, P. Pecheux, V. Piessevaux, J. Rurarz, L. Vétillard and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "defendant at first instance,", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "supported by:", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "Czech Republic , represented by K. Najmanová, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "European Commission , represented by M. Carpus Carcea and L. Puccio, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "interveners in the appeal (C‑35/24 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "Republic of Latvia , represented by J. Davidoviča, K. Pommere and S. Zābele, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "intervener at first instance (C‑35/24 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Grand Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "composed of K. Lenaerts, President, C. Lycourgos, I. Jarukaitis, M.L. Arastey Sahún (Rapporteur), I. Ziemele, J. Passer, O. Spineanu-Matei, M. Condinanzi and F. Schalin, Presidents of Chambers, E. Regan, N. Piçarra, A. Kumin, B. Smulders, S. Gervasoni and N. Fenger, Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "Advocate General: L. Medina,", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "Registrar: A. Lamote, Administrator,", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 February 2025,", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 June 2025,", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "By his appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy (‘the first appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 September 2023, Pumpyanskiy v Council ( T‑270/22 , the first judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:490 ), by which the General Cour …", "paragraph_id": "para_144", "court_paragraph": 1 }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "By his appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, Mr Tigran Khudaverdyan (‘the second appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023, Khudaverdyan v Council ( T‑335/22 , the second judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:500 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking a …", "paragraph_id": "para_146", "court_paragraph": 2 }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "By his appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, Mr Viktor Filippovich Rashnikov (‘the third appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2023, Rashnikov v Council (T‑305/22, ‘the third judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2023:530 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking annulment of the acts at issue, in so far as those acts include and maintain his name on the lists annexed thereto.", "paragraph_id": "para_148", "court_paragraph": 3 }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "By his appeal in Case C‑35/24 P, Mr Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin (‘the fourth appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2023, Mazepin v Council ( T‑282/22 , the fourth judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:701 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking annulment of the decision and regulation at issue, in so far as those acts include his name on the lists annexed thereto.", "paragraph_id": "para_150", "court_paragraph": 4 }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "By his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, Mr German Khan (‘the fifth appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2023, Khan v Council ( T‑333/22 , the fifth judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:758 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking annulment of the initial acts at issue and of the first maintaining acts at issue, in so far as those acts include and maintain his name on the lists annexed thereto.", "paragraph_id": "para_152", "court_paragraph": 5 }, { "text": "I.   Legal context and background to the disputes", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "The factual and legal context of the disputes is set out in paragraphs 2 to 17 of the first judgment under appeal, in paragraphs 2 to 18 of the second judgment under appeal, in paragraphs 2 to 25 of the third judgment under appeal, in paragraphs 2 to 15 of the fourth judgment under appeal and in paragraphs 2 to 18 of the fifth judgment under appeal. For the purposes of the present cases, that context may be summarised and supplemented as follows.", "paragraph_id": "para_155", "court_paragraph": 6 }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "The present cases arise in the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union since 2014 in response to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.", "paragraph_id": "para_157", "court_paragraph": 7 }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "The first, third and fourth appellants are Russian businessmen, the second appellant is an Armenian businessman and the fifth appellant is a businessman holding Russian and Israeli nationalities.", "paragraph_id": "para_159", "court_paragraph": 8 }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "On 17 March 2014, on the basis of Article 29 TEU, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine ( OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16 ).", "paragraph_id": "para_161", "court_paragraph": 9 }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "On the same date, on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine ( OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6 ).", "paragraph_id": "para_163", "court_paragraph": 10 }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "Following the invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022, on 25 February 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial inte …", "paragraph_id": "para_165", "court_paragraph": 11 }, { "text": "A.   Decision 2022/329", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "Recitals 5 and 8 to 11 of Decision 2022/329 state:", "paragraph_id": "para_168", "court_paragraph": 12 }, { "text": "‘(5)", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "On 24 January 2022, … the Council reiterated that any further military aggression by Russia against Ukraine would have massive consequences and severe costs, including a wide array of sectoral and individual restrictive measures that would be adopted in coordination with partners.", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "(8)", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "On 22 February 2022, the High Representative issued a declaration on behalf of the Union condemning that illegal act, which further undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence and is a severe breach of international law and international agreements, including the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final …", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "(9)", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "On 24 February 2022, the President of the Russian Federation announced a military operation in Ukraine and Russian armed forces began an attack on Ukraine. That attack is a blatant violation of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "(10)", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "On 24 February 2022, the High Representative [of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy] issued a declaration on behalf of the Union condemning in the strongest possible terms the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by armed forces of the Russian Federation and the involvement of Belarus in th …", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "(11)", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "In view of the gravity of the situation, the Council considers that the criteria of designation should be amended to include persons and entities supporting and benefitting from the Government of the Russian Federation as well as persons and entities providing a substantial source of revenue to it, and natural or legal persons associated with listed persons or entities.’", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "B.   Decision 2014/145, as amended, in particular, by Decision 2022/329", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329 (‘Decision 2014/145’), requires Member States to take the necessary measures, subject to the derogations set out in Article 1(2), (3) and (6), to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of, inter alia, natural persons meeting the criteria laid down in Article 1(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e).", "paragraph_id": "para_182", "court_paragraph": 13 }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "Article 2(1)(a), (d), (f) and (g) of Decision 2014/145 provides for the freezing of the funds and economic resources belonging in particular to natural persons meeting the criteria defined in those subparagraphs – which are, in essence, identical to those laid down in Article 1(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of that decision – and of all funds and economic resources owned, held or controlled by those persons. Article 2(1) reads as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_184", "court_paragraph": 14 }, { "text": "‘All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by:", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "(a)", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "natural persons responsible for, supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, or stability or security in Ukraine, or which obstruct the work of international organisations in Ukraine;", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "(d)", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine;", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "(f)", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine; or", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "(g)", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine;", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.’", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "In its original version, Article 2(1) of Decision 2014/145 was worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_199", "court_paragraph": 15 }, { "text": "‘All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by natural persons responsible for actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.’", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "Article 2(3) to (5), (7) and (8) of Decision 2014/145 provides, in essence, that the competent authorities of the Member States may, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources and authorise payments to certain entities, …", "paragraph_id": "para_202", "court_paragraph": 16 }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "Under the third paragraph of Article 6 of that decision, the decision is to be kept under constant review and is to be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.", "paragraph_id": "para_204", "court_paragraph": 17 }, { "text": "C.   Regulation No 269/2014", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "Article 3(1)(a), (d), (f) and (g) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended by Regulation 2022/330 (‘Regulation No 269/2014’), sets out the criteria governing, inter alia, the inclusion, on the list in Annex I to that regulation, of the names of natural persons whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with Article 2(1) of that regulation. Those criteria are, in essence, identical to those set out in paragraph 14 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_207", "court_paragraph": 18 }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "Articles 4 to 6b of that regulation reproduce, in essence, the same provisions as those contained in paragraphs (3) to (5), (7) and (8) respectively of Article 2 of Decision 2014/145.", "paragraph_id": "para_209", "court_paragraph": 19 }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "Article 14(4) of Regulation No 269/2014 provides that the list in Annex I to that regulation is to be reviewed at regular intervals and at least every 12 months.", "paragraph_id": "para_211", "court_paragraph": 20 }, { "text": "D.   The decision and regulation at issue (Cases C‑696/23 P and C‑35/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "On 9 March 2022, in view of the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, the Council adopted the decision and regulation at issue. By means of those acts, the names of the first and fourth appellants were added to the lists respectively annexed to and contained in Decision 2014/145 and Annex I to Regulation No 269/2014, for the following reasons:", "paragraph_id": "para_214", "court_paragraph": 21 }, { "text": "‘[The first appellant] is the [c]hairman of the board of directors of PJSC Pipe Metallurgic Company [(‘TMK’)] and the [p]resident and a board member of Group Sinara. He thus supports and benefits from cooperation with authorities of Russian Federation and State-owned enterprises, including Russian r …", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "On 24 February 2022, in the aftermath of the initial stages of Russian aggression against Ukraine, [the first appellant], along with [36 other] businesspeople, met with President Vladimir Putin and other members of the Russian government to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of W …", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "[The fourth appellant] is the owner and [chief executive officer] of the mineral fertiliser company Uralchem. Uralchem Group is a Russian manufacturer of a wide range of chemical products, including mineral fertilisers and ammoniac saltpetre. According to the company, it is the largest producer of a …", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "On 24 February 2022, in the aftermath of the initial stages of Russian aggression against Ukraine, [the fourth appellant], along with [36 other] businesspeople, met with President Vladimir Putin and other members of the Russian government to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of …", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "In December 2021 [the fourth appellant] rewrote his Cyprus-based companies Uralchem Holding and CI-Chemical Invest, controlling “Uralchem”, to Russian jurisdiction at special administrative district on Oktyabrsky Island of Kaliningrad Oblast.’", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "E.   The acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P and C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "1.\n  \n The initial acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23/P, C‑711/23 P and C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "On 15 March 2022, in view of the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, the Council adopted the initial acts at issue. By those acts, the names of the second, third and fifth appellants were added to the list annexed to Decision 2014/145 and to the list in Annex I to Regulation No 269/2014, for the following reasons, worded identically in both those lists:", "paragraph_id": "para_224", "court_paragraph": 22 }, { "text": "‘[The fifth appellant] is a major shareholder of the Alfa Group conglomerate, which includes Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest taxpayers. He is believed to be one of the most influential persons in Russia. Like other Alfa Bank owners (Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven), he maintains a close relationshi …", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "He has therefore been actively supporting materially or financially and benefitting from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine. He is also one of the leading Russian businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "[The third appellant] is a leading Russian oligarch who is owner and chairman of the [b]oard of [d]irectors of the Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works (MMK) company. MMK is one of Russia’s largest taxpayers. The tax burden on the company increased lately, resulting in considerably higher proceeds to the Russian state budget.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "He is therefore a leading Russian businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "[The second appellant] is the executive director of Yandex [NV] – one of the leading technology companies in Russia, which specializes in intelligent products and services powered by machine learning. Yandex’s former head of news accused the company of being a “key element in hiding information” fro …", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "On 24 February 2022, [the second appellant] attended a meeting of oligarchs at the Kremlin with Vladimir Putin to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of Western sanctions. The fact that he was invited to attend that meeting shows that he is a member of the inner circle of oligarch …", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Recital 5 of Implementing Regulation 2022/427, one of the two initial acts at issue, states:", "paragraph_id": "para_234", "court_paragraph": 23 }, { "text": "‘On 25 February 2022, the Council adopted [Regulation 2022/330], which amended the criteria of designation to include persons and entities supporting and benefitting from the Government of the Russian Federation, persons and entities providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, and natural or legal persons associated with listed persons or entities.’", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "2.\n  \n The first maintaining acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23/P, C‑711/23 P and C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "On 14 September 2022, the Council adopted the first maintaining acts at issue, by which it maintained the names of the second, third and fifth appellants on the list annexed to Decision 2014/145 and on the list in Annex I to Regulation No 269/2014 on the basis of the same reasons as those reproduced in paragraph 22 of the present judgment, although, in respect of the second appellant, the reasons now stated that he was the ‘former’ executive director of Yandex.", "paragraph_id": "para_238", "court_paragraph": 24 }, { "text": "3.\n  \n The second maintaining acts at issue (Cases C‑704/23 P and C‑711/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "25", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "On 13 March 2023, the Council adopted the second maintaining acts at issue, by which it maintained the names of the second and third appellants on the lists annexed to Decision 2014/145 and to Regulation No 269/2014. While the reasons for that listing were unchanged as regards the third appellant, those for the second appellant’s listing were now worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_241", "court_paragraph": 25 }, { "text": "‘[The second appellant] is former [e]xecutive [d]irector and [former deputy chief executive officer] of Yandex N.V., having resigned from those positions following his designation by the European Union. He remains among the top managers of Yandex, shaping the activities of the company.", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "Yandex is the largest technology firm in Russia. It brings a considerable tax revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation. Russian State-owned banks such as Sberbank and VTB are shareholders and investors in the company. In 2019, Yandex agreed to a restructuring that gave a “golden share” to …", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "Since the start of the war of aggression against Ukraine, Yandex has followed the information policy and censorship of the Government of the Russian Federation. The search results of Yandex search engine have complied with the demands of the Russian authorities, showing only the sources related to Russian pro-war propaganda. Moreover, Yandex helped websites pushing false and pro-Russian claims about the invasion of Ukraine to make profit through digital advertising.", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "On 24 February 2022, [the second appellant] attended a meeting of oligarchs at the Kremlin with Vladimir Putin to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of Western sanctions. The fact that he was invited to attend that meeting shows that he is a member of the inner circle of oligarch …", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "He is a leading businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, and he supported materially or financially the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabil …", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "II.   The actions before the General Court and the judgments under appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "A.   The action before the General Court and the first judgment under appeal (Case C‑696/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "26", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 17 May 2022, the first appellant brought an action seeking annulment of the decision and regulation at issue in so far as they concern him. In his action for annulment, he disputed in particular the Council’s finding that his situation me …", "paragraph_id": "para_250", "court_paragraph": 26 }, { "text": "27", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "By the first judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the first appellant’s action. In respect of the (g) criterion, the General Court held, in essence, in paragraphs 51, 56 and 58 of that judgment, that the Council had adduced a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of eviden …", "paragraph_id": "para_252", "court_paragraph": 27 }, { "text": "28", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "The General Court also held, in paragraph 62 of the first judgment under appeal, that the fact that the appellant had resigned from his positions in the two companies concerned on the very day on which the decision and regulation at issue were adopted was irrelevant for the purposes of determining t …", "paragraph_id": "para_254", "court_paragraph": 28 }, { "text": "29", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "In paragraph 66 of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the wording of the (g) criterion left no room for doubt as to the fact that the ‘substantial source of revenue’ to which that criterion refers had to come not from the ‘leading businesspersons’ but from the ‘economic sec …", "paragraph_id": "para_256", "court_paragraph": 29 }, { "text": "30", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "As regards the plea in law alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights, the General Court found, in paragraph 79 of the first judgment under appeal, that the four conditions under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter …", "paragraph_id": "para_258", "court_paragraph": 30 }, { "text": "31", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "Moreover, the General Court noted, in paragraph 86 of that judgment, that the legality of a measure adopted in an area in which the EU legislature has broad discretion can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is se …", "paragraph_id": "para_260", "court_paragraph": 31 }, { "text": "B.   The action before the General Court and the second judgment under appeal (Case C‑704/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "32", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 7 June 2022, the second appellant brought an action seeking annulment of the acts at issue in so far as they concern him. In his action for annulment, he disputed in particular the Council’s finding that his situation met the (g) criterion. He submitted that, in so finding, the Council had made a manifest error of assessment and had also infringed his fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.", "paragraph_id": "para_263", "court_paragraph": 32 }, { "text": "33", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "By the second judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed that action. As regards the (g) criterion, the General Court stated, in paragraphs 79 to 81 of that judgment, that, having regard in particular to the objective pursued by the restrictive measures established by the decision and regula …", "paragraph_id": "para_265", "court_paragraph": 33 }, { "text": "34", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "The General Court also held, in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the second judgment under appeal, that it was apparent from the objective of those restrictive measures that the revenue referred to in the (g) criterion was not the revenue from leading businesspersons but that from the economic sectors in whi …", "paragraph_id": "para_267", "court_paragraph": 34 }, { "text": "35", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "The General Court also found, in paragraphs 90, 107 and 108 of the second judgment under appeal, that, in respect of the initial acts at issue, the Council had adduced a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to demonstrate, first, that the second appellant was a leading busi …", "paragraph_id": "para_269", "court_paragraph": 35 }, { "text": "36", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "As regards the first maintaining acts at issue and the second maintaining acts at issue, the General Court held, in paragraph 125 of the second judgment under appeal, that the Council had correctly found that the second appellant still had significant ties to Yandex, and that the maintenance of his name on the lists at issue therefore remained justified.", "paragraph_id": "para_271", "court_paragraph": 36 }, { "text": "37", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "Ruling on the plea in law alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, the General Court held, inter alia, in paragraphs 137 to 139 of the second judgment under appeal, that, given that the (g) criterion does not concern the nationality of the designated persons, it could not be found to inf …", "paragraph_id": "para_273", "court_paragraph": 37 }, { "text": "38", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "In respect of the plea in law alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, the General Court rejected that plea, in paragraphs 151 and 166 of the second judgment under appeal, in particular on the grounds, set out in paragraphs 143 and 145 of that judgment, that the restrictive measures impo …", "paragraph_id": "para_275", "court_paragraph": 38 }, { "text": "C.   The action before the General Court and the third judgment under appeal (Case C‑711/23 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "39", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 May 2022, the third appellant brought an action seeking annulment of the acts at issue in so far as they concern him. In that action, he disputed in particular the Council’s finding that his situation met the (g) criterion. He submitte …", "paragraph_id": "para_278", "court_paragraph": 39 }, { "text": "40", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "By the third judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed that action. In respect of the (g) criterion, the General Court, maintaining the same interpretation of the concepts of ‘leading businessperson’ and of ‘substantial source of revenue’ as that adopted in the second judgment under appeal, …", "paragraph_id": "para_280", "court_paragraph": 40 }, { "text": "41", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "In paragraph 81 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that MMK’s contribution to the budget of the Russian Federation was not a decisive factor in determining whether the economic sector in which the third appellant was active constituted a substantial source of revenue for th …", "paragraph_id": "para_282", "court_paragraph": 41 }, { "text": "42", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "Furthermore, in paragraphs 104 to 109 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court rejected the plea of illegality raised by the third appellant in respect of the (g) criterion. In that regard, while noting that the criterion in question did not establish a presumption of a link between the …", "paragraph_id": "para_284", "court_paragraph": 42 }, { "text": "43", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "As regards the plea in law alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, the General Court rejected that plea, in paragraphs 143 to 146 of the third judgment under appeal, for the same reasons, in essence, as those set out in paragraph 37 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_286", "court_paragraph": 43 }, { "text": "D.   The action before the General Court and the fourth judgment under appeal (Case C‑35/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "44", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 18 May 2022, the fourth appellant brought an action seeking annulment of the decision and regulation at issue in so far as they concern him. In his action for annulment, he disputed in particular the Council’s finding that his situation m …", "paragraph_id": "para_289", "court_paragraph": 44 }, { "text": "45", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "By the fourth judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed that action. In respect of the (g) criterion, the General Court, maintaining the same interpretation of the concepts of ‘leading businessperson’ and of ‘substantial source of revenue’ as that adopted in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the pres …", "paragraph_id": "para_291", "court_paragraph": 45 }, { "text": "46", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "The General Court, in paragraphs 84 to 92 of the fourth judgment under appeal, also rejected the plea of illegality raised by the fourth appellant in respect of the (g) criterion. In that regard, it adopted the same reasoning as that summarised in paragraph 42 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_293", "court_paragraph": 46 }, { "text": "47", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "As regards the plea in law alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, the General Court rejected that plea, in paragraphs 126 to 131 of the fourth judgment under appeal, for the same reasons, in essence, as those set out in paragraph 37 of the present judgment. It added, in paragraph 128 o …", "paragraph_id": "para_295", "court_paragraph": 47 }, { "text": "E.   The action before the General Court and the fifth judgment under appeal (Case C‑111/24 P)", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "48", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 6 June 2022, the fifth appellant brought an action seeking annulment of the initial acts at issue and of the first maintaining acts at issue in so far as they concern him. In his action for annulment, he disputed in particular the Council …", "paragraph_id": "para_298", "court_paragraph": 48 }, { "text": "49", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "By the fifth judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action. Ruling on the plea of illegality alleging that the (g) criterion lacks a legal basis, the General Court noted, in paragraph 37 of that judgment, that, since there is a decision that was adopted in accordance with the provisi …", "paragraph_id": "para_300", "court_paragraph": 49 }, { "text": "50", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "The General Court stated furthermore, in paragraph 45 of that judgment, that, because it refers to all the revenue generated by the business sector in which the leading businesspersons concerned operate, the (g) criterion is concerned with all the tax generated by the economic sector in question, even taxes that have not been paid by those persons.", "paragraph_id": "para_302", "court_paragraph": 50 }, { "text": "51", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "As regards the plea of illegality alleging that the (g) criterion infringes the principle of proportionality, the General Court rejected that plea, in paragraphs 50 to 63 of the fifth judgment under appeal, on grounds similar to those summarised in paragraph 42 of the present judgment. In paragraph …", "paragraph_id": "para_304", "court_paragraph": 51 }, { "text": "52", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "As regards the application of the (g) criterion to the fifth appellant, in paragraphs 88 to 93 and in paragraph 106 of the fifth judgment under appeal, the General Court maintained the same interpretation of the concepts of ‘leading businessperson’ and of ‘substantial source of revenue’ as that adop …", "paragraph_id": "para_306", "court_paragraph": 52 }, { "text": "53", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "As regards whether the initial acts at issue are well founded, the General Court held, in paragraph 105 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that, in the light of all the evidence, the Council had been able to find, without making an error of assessment, that the fifth appellant was a ‘leading busine …", "paragraph_id": "para_308", "court_paragraph": 53 }, { "text": "54", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "As regards the first maintaining acts at issue, the General Court held, in paragraph 125 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that the Council did not make an error of assessment in finding that the fifth appellant’s individual situation was unchanged, or in relying on the same evidence for the purposes of maintaining the restrictive measures adopted against that appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_310", "court_paragraph": 54 }, { "text": "III.   Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought by the parties to the appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "A.   Joinder", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "55", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "On 5 June 2024, the President of the Court invited the parties to express their views on the possible joinder of Cases C‑696/23 P, C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P, C‑35/24 P and C‑111/24 P for the purposes of the further course of the proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_314", "court_paragraph": 55 }, { "text": "56", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "By letters of 20 June 2024, the second, third and fourth appellants informed the Court that they had no objections to the joinder of those cases. By five letters dated 27 June 2024, 3 July 2024, 1 July 2024, 28 June 2024 and 1 July 2024 respectively, the Council informed the Court that it also saw n …", "paragraph_id": "para_316", "court_paragraph": 56 }, { "text": "57", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "On 5 July 2024, the President of the Court decided that it was not appropriate to join the cases at that stage of the procedure.", "paragraph_id": "para_318", "court_paragraph": 57 }, { "text": "B.   The applications to intervene", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "58", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 11 April 2024, the Czech Republic applied for leave to intervene in Case C‑35/24 P in support of the form of order sought by the Council. By decision of the President of the Court of 7 May 2024, that application to intervene was granted.", "paragraph_id": "para_321", "court_paragraph": 58 }, { "text": "59", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 3 May 2024, the Commission applied for leave to intervene in Case C‑35/24 P in support of the form of order sought by the Council. By decision of the President of the Court of 31 May 2024, that application to intervene was granted.", "paragraph_id": "para_323", "court_paragraph": 59 }, { "text": "C.   Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "1.\n  \n Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "60", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "The first appellant claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_327", "court_paragraph": 60 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "set aside the first judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "give judgment in the action on the merits and annul the decision and regulation at issue in so far as they concern him and order the Council to pay the costs, including those incurred at first instance; and", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court and reserve the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "61", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "The Council claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_335", "court_paragraph": 61 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "dismiss the appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "in the alternative, if the Court decides to set aside the first judgment under appeal and to dispose of the case, dismiss the action on the merits; and", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "order the first appellant to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "2.\n  \n Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "62", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "The second appellant claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_344", "court_paragraph": 62 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "set aside the second judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "give judgment in the action on the merits and annul the acts at issue in so far as they concern him;", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "under Article 268 TFEU, order compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him as a result of the adoption of those acts; and", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "order the Council to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "63", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "The Council claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_354", "court_paragraph": 63 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "dismiss the appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "in the alternative, if the Court decides to set aside the second judgment under appeal and to dispose of the case, dismiss the action on the merits; and", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "order the second appellant to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "3.\n  \n Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑711/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "64", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "The third appellant claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_363", "court_paragraph": 64 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "set aside the third judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "annul the acts at issue;", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "in the alternative, set aside the third judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "order the Council to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "65", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "The Council claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_373", "court_paragraph": 65 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "dismiss the appeal; and", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "order the third appellant to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "4.\n  \n Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "66", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "The fourth appellant claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_380", "court_paragraph": 66 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "set aside the fourth judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "annul the decision and regulation at issue;", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "in the alternative, set aside the fourth judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "order the Council to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "67", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "The Council, supported by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the European Commission, claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_390", "court_paragraph": 67 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "dismiss the appeal; and", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "order the fourth appellant to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "5.\n  \n Forms of order sought by the parties in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "68", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "The fifth appellant claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_397", "court_paragraph": 68 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "set aside the fifth judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "dispose of the action on the merits and annul the initial acts at issue and the first maintaining acts at issue;", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "in the alternative, set aside the fifth judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and, in any event,", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "order the Council to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "69", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "The Council claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_407", "court_paragraph": 69 }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "dismiss the appeal; and", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "order the fifth appellant to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "D.   The applications to reopen the oral part of the procedure", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "1.\n  \n The application to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "70", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 16 June 2025, the first appellant applied to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑696/23 P, in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.", "paragraph_id": "para_415", "court_paragraph": 70 }, { "text": "71", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "In support of his application he claims, first, that, contrary to what was stated, in essence, by the Advocate General in point 32 of her Opinion in that case, he asserts, in his appeal, that he cannot be classified as a ‘leading businessperson’ because he transferred the shares that he held in TMK …", "paragraph_id": "para_417", "court_paragraph": 71 }, { "text": "72", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "Pursuant to Article 83 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, after hearing the Advocate General, order the reopening of the oral part of the procedure, in particular if it considers that it lacks sufficient information or where a party has, after the close of that part of the procedu …", "paragraph_id": "para_419", "court_paragraph": 72 }, { "text": "73", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, as regards the Advocate General’s alleged misunderstanding of the first appellant’s appeal in point 32 of her Opinion in Case C‑696/23 P, it should be borne in mind that the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Rules of Procedure make no provision for in …", "paragraph_id": "para_421", "court_paragraph": 73 }, { "text": "74", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "Furthermore, as regards the error that the Council is alleged to have made at the hearing before the Court, this quite clearly does not involve an ‘argument’ which has not been debated between the parties within the meaning of Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure, but a slip of the tongue similar to a clerical error or a shorthand expression.", "paragraph_id": "para_423", "court_paragraph": 74 }, { "text": "75", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers, after hearing the Advocate General, that it is not appropriate to order the reopening of the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑696/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_425", "court_paragraph": 75 }, { "text": "2.\n  \n The application to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑711/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "76", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 5 June 2025, the third appellant applied to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑711/23 P, in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure.", "paragraph_id": "para_428", "court_paragraph": 76 }, { "text": "77", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "In support of his application, he notes that Decision 2014/145 and Regulation No 269/2014 were amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/904 of 13 May 2025 (OJ L, 2025/904) and by Council Regulation (EU) 2025/903 of 13 May 2025 (OJ L, 2025/903) respectively. According to that appellant, those two EU a …", "paragraph_id": "para_430", "court_paragraph": 77 }, { "text": "78", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, it should be noted that Decision 2025/904 and Regulation 2025/903 are not applicable ratione temporis to Case C‑711/23 P. The legality of the acts at issue in that case must be assessed in the light of the situation existing on the date on which they were adopted, with the effec …", "paragraph_id": "para_432", "court_paragraph": 78 }, { "text": "79", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "In addition, it is not obvious that the case would have to be decided on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties, and the Court accordingly has all the information necessary to give judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_434", "court_paragraph": 79 }, { "text": "80", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers, after hearing the Advocate General, that it is not appropriate to order the reopening of the oral part of the procedure in Case C‑711/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_436", "court_paragraph": 80 }, { "text": "IV.   The appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "81", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "In view of the connection between them, it is appropriate to join the present cases for the purposes of the judgment, in accordance with Article 54(1) of the Rules of Procedure.", "paragraph_id": "para_439", "court_paragraph": 81 }, { "text": "82", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "In support of his appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the first appellant relies on five grounds of appeal. By his first ground of appeal, he submits that the General Court erred in law in classifying him as a ‘leading businessperson’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion. By his second ground of appeal, h …", "paragraph_id": "para_441", "court_paragraph": 82 }, { "text": "83", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "In his appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant relies on four grounds of appeal, the first of which alleges that the General Court erred in law in interpreting and applying the (g) criterion and the second that the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review. The third and fou …", "paragraph_id": "para_443", "court_paragraph": 83 }, { "text": "84", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "The third appellant raises five grounds of appeal in support of his appeal in Case C‑711/23 P. By his first ground of appeal, he claims that the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review and in that way made a number of errors of law and distortions of fact. The second and third gro …", "paragraph_id": "para_445", "court_paragraph": 84 }, { "text": "85", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "The five grounds of appeal put forward by the fourth appellant in his appeal in Case C‑35/24 P are worded identically to the five grounds of appeal put forward by the third appellant, with the exception of the fourth ground of appeal by which the fourth appellant criticises the General Court not for misapplying the (g) criterion but for reversing the burden of proof.", "paragraph_id": "para_447", "court_paragraph": 85 }, { "text": "86", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "In his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant raises eight grounds of appeal. By his first ground of appeal, he criticises the General Court for failing to respond to his complaints concerning the satisfaction on the facts of the criterion established in, inter alia, Article 2(1)(d) of Decis …", "paragraph_id": "para_449", "court_paragraph": 86 }, { "text": "87", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "Since many grounds of appeal relied on by the five appellants in support of their respective appeals are connected or identical, the Court will analyse those grounds of appeal together before addressing the grounds that are specific to particular appeals. In addition, as it is necessary to clarify t …", "paragraph_id": "para_451", "court_paragraph": 87 }, { "text": "A.   Grounds of appeal alleging infringement of the (g) criterion by the General Court", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "88", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "It is appropriate to examine together the grounds of appeal, parts of grounds and complaints by which the five appellants criticise, essentially, the interpretation of the (g) criterion adopted by the General Court. They are the first ground of appeal and the second part of the second ground of appe …", "paragraph_id": "para_454", "court_paragraph": 88 }, { "text": "89", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "By way of reminder, the (g) criterion provides that the funds and economic resources belonging to ‘leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine’ are to be frozen.", "paragraph_id": "para_456", "court_paragraph": 89 }, { "text": "90", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "In what follows, examination of the grounds of appeal, parts and complaints referred to in paragraph 88 of the present judgment will be divided into two parts, addressing in turn the interpretation of the expression ‘providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’ and the interpretation of the adjective ‘leading’ that qualifies the businesspersons at whom the (g) criterion is aimed.", "paragraph_id": "para_458", "court_paragraph": 90 }, { "text": "1.\n  \n Arguments alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the expression ‘providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "91", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, although the second part of the second ground of appeal relied on by the first appellant in support of his appeal in Case C‑696/23 P seeks to criticise the interpretation of that expression used by the General Court, examination of that part requires an overall assessment of the (g) criterion and that part will therefore be examined separately at a later stage.", "paragraph_id": "para_461", "court_paragraph": 91 }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n The second ground of appeal and the first part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and the second ground of appeal and the first part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "(1)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "92", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "By his second ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the third appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in finding, in essence, in paragraphs 68 to 70 of the third judgment under appeal, that the ‘substantial revenue’ provided to the Government of the Russian Federation had to come from ‘ …", "paragraph_id": "para_465", "court_paragraph": 92 }, { "text": "93", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "In his reply, the third appellant states that the interpretation he is proposing does not remove the rationale of the part of the wording of the (g) criterion according to which the leading businesspersons must be involved in economic sectors. That specification serves to distinguish businesspersons …", "paragraph_id": "para_467", "court_paragraph": 93 }, { "text": "94", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "In the first part of his third ground of appeal, the third appellant criticises the General Court for erring in law in finding, in essence, fundamentally in paragraphs 69 and 70 of the third judgment under appeal, that the substantial revenue provided to the Government of the Russian Federation was …", "paragraph_id": "para_469", "court_paragraph": 94 }, { "text": "95", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "The second ground of appeal relied on by the fourth appellant in support of his appeal in Case C‑35/24 P addresses paragraphs 56 and 57 of the fourth judgment under appeal and is based on the same arguments as those set out by the third appellant in support of the second ground of appeal in his appe …", "paragraph_id": "para_471", "court_paragraph": 95 }, { "text": "96", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "In the first part of his third ground of appeal, which essentially addresses paragraphs 56 and 57 of the fourth judgment under appeal, read in conjunction with paragraph 92 of that judgment, the fourth appellant advances the same arguments as those set out by the third appellant in support of the first part of the third ground of appeal in his appeal in Case C‑711/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_473", "court_paragraph": 96 }, { "text": "97", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "The Council, supported in Case C‑35/24 P by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission, disputes the merits of the arguments of the third and fourth appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_475", "court_paragraph": 97 }, { "text": "(2)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "98", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "The third appellant, by his second ground of appeal and by the first part of his third ground of appeal, and the fourth appellant, by his second ground of appeal and the first part of his third ground of appeal, submit, in essence, that it is clear from several language versions of the (g) criterion …", "paragraph_id": "para_478", "court_paragraph": 98 }, { "text": "99", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "In that regard, it needs to be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, it is necessary, when interpreting a provision of EU law, to consider not only its wording but also its context and the objectives of the legislation of which it forms part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 2 …", "paragraph_id": "para_480", "court_paragraph": 99 }, { "text": "100", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "Furthermore, the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement for uniform applicati …", "paragraph_id": "para_482", "court_paragraph": 100 }, { "text": "101", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the statement of reasons for a judgment or an order of the General Court must clearly and unequivocally disclose the General Court’s reasoning, in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken and to enable th …", "paragraph_id": "para_484", "court_paragraph": 101 }, { "text": "102", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "As regards, in the first place, the infringement of the obligation to state reasons alleged by the fourth appellant, inasmuch as the General Court, in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the fourth judgment under appeal, failed to carry out an analysis of the various language versions of the (g) criterion, even …", "paragraph_id": "para_486", "court_paragraph": 102 }, { "text": "103", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "In the second place, as regards the arguments of the third and fourth appellants that the teleological interpretation of the (g) criterion adopted by the General Court, in paragraphs 69 and 70 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the fourth judgment under appeal, is inco …", "paragraph_id": "para_488", "court_paragraph": 103 }, { "text": "104", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "As regards, first, the wording of the (g) criterion, in order to identify where the substantial source of revenue provided to the Government of the Russian Federation must originate, it is appropriate, depending on which of the various language versions of that criterion is concerned, to examine eit …", "paragraph_id": "para_490", "court_paragraph": 104 }, { "text": "105", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "As a preliminary point, it should be noted that it is common ground that the expression ‘involved in economic sectors’ relates to the whole of the nominal group ‘leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies’. In those circumstances, the phrase ‘that provide/providing a substantial so …", "paragraph_id": "para_492", "court_paragraph": 105 }, { "text": "106", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "In that regard, it should be emphasised that, contrary to the assertions of the third and fourth appellants, the phrase equivalent to ‘that provide a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’, in the versions of the (g) criterion in Danish, Estonian, Finnish, Latvian …", "paragraph_id": "para_494", "court_paragraph": 106 }, { "text": "107", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "By contrast, there is ambiguity in the versions in Bulgarian and Slovenian, to which those appellants refer, since the relative pronouns ‘ които ’ and ‘ ki ’ (‘that’) respectively can refer equally to the phrases ‘ видни бизнесмени или юридически лица, образувания или органи ’ and ‘ vodilni poslovne …", "paragraph_id": "para_496", "court_paragraph": 107 }, { "text": "108", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "It follows that 6 of those language versions, that is to say, the versions in Bulgarian, Maltese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian and Spanish, can be read in both the ways envisaged in paragraph 105 of the present judgment, unlike the 18 other versions, in which the expression equivalent to ‘providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’ can correspond only to the nominal group ‘economic sectors’.", "paragraph_id": "para_498", "court_paragraph": 108 }, { "text": "109", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "It is apparent from the foregoing that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court recalled in paragraph 100 of the present judgment, the wording of the (g) criterion can be interpreted uniformly in all languages of the European Union as meaning that the ‘substantial source of revenue’ provided to …", "paragraph_id": "para_500", "court_paragraph": 109 }, { "text": "110", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "As regards, second, the context of the (g) criterion, it is appropriate, at the outset, to point out that, in the event that the substantial source of revenue provided to the Government of the Russian Federation were required to come not from ‘economic sectors’ as such, but from ‘leading businessper …", "paragraph_id": "para_502", "court_paragraph": 110 }, { "text": "111", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "The criterion established in Article 2(1)(f) provides that all funds and economic resources belonging to natural or legal persons, entities and bodies supporting the Government of the Russian Federation, including financially, are to be frozen.", "paragraph_id": "para_504", "court_paragraph": 111 }, { "text": "112", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "It is clear that such a criterion in itself allows restrictive measures to be imposed on natural persons, including, as the case may be, leading businesspersons, and on legal persons, entities and bodies, for the sole reason that they support that government financially, with no requirement to deter …", "paragraph_id": "para_506", "court_paragraph": 112 }, { "text": "113", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, the interest in preserving the effectiveness of the (g) criterion in conjunction with the criterion established in Article 2(1)(f) of Decision 2014/145 militates in favour of an interpretation according to which the substantial source of revenue provided to the Government of the Russian Federation must be the ‘economic sectors’ of that third country.", "paragraph_id": "para_508", "court_paragraph": 113 }, { "text": "114", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "It is also true, as the first and fourth appellants submit, that recital 11 of Decision 2022/329 and recital 5 of Implementing Regulation 2022/427 state, in essence, that the listing criteria serving as the basis for the imposition of restrictive measures in view of the actions by the Russian Federa …", "paragraph_id": "para_510", "court_paragraph": 114 }, { "text": "115", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "However, according to settled case-law, although the preamble of an EU act may explain the content of the provisions of that act in so far as the recitals constitute important elements for the purposes of interpretation, which may clarify the intentions of the author of that act, that preamble has, …", "paragraph_id": "para_512", "court_paragraph": 115 }, { "text": "116", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "As stated in paragraph 109 of the present judgment, there are no divergences between the various language versions of the (g) criterion, since it is apparent from reading them together that the ‘substantial source of revenue’ provided to the Government of the Russian Federation must come from ‘econo …", "paragraph_id": "para_514", "court_paragraph": 116 }, { "text": "117", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "In respect of, third, the objective pursued by the (g) criterion and by the legislation of which that criterion forms part and of their historical context, it should be recalled that it was as the result of the actions of the Russian Federation in Crimea in 2014 that the European Union adopted acts, …", "paragraph_id": "para_516", "court_paragraph": 117 }, { "text": "118", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "In that context, the Court has held that the objective of the individual and sectoral restrictive measures taken since 2014 was, inter alia, to increase the costs of the actions of the Russian Federation to undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (see, to that ef …", "paragraph_id": "para_518", "court_paragraph": 118 }, { "text": "119", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "In view of the continuation and increasing extent of those actions, the European Union gradually strengthened that sanctions regime. Accordingly, inter alia, it added criteria to the single listing criterion, as it appeared in the initial version of those acts, that is to say, the criterion aimed at …", "paragraph_id": "para_520", "court_paragraph": 119 }, { "text": "120", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "As is apparent from paragraphs 11 and 12 of the present judgment, the (g) criterion was introduced, as an unprecedented listing criterion, the day after the invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, which, according to recitals 9 and 10 of Decision 2022/329, was described as illegal under international law both by the Council and by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.", "paragraph_id": "para_522", "court_paragraph": 120 }, { "text": "121", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "In view of the extreme gravity of that invasion and of the fact that the Council had stated one month previously, as is apparent from recital 5 of that decision, that any further aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation would have massive consequences, in particular in terms of costs in …", "paragraph_id": "para_524", "court_paragraph": 121 }, { "text": "122", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "As the Advocate General stated in point 63 of her Opinion in Case C‑711/23 P and in point 60 of her Opinion in Case C‑35/24 P, the (g) criterion would not be able to contribute so effectively to attaining those objectives if it had to be interpreted as meaning that restrictive measures could be imposed only on leading businesspersons, legal persons, entities and bodies that themselves provide a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.", "paragraph_id": "para_526", "court_paragraph": 122 }, { "text": "123", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "By contrast, the ability to impose restrictive measures on all leading businesspersons, legal persons, entities and bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, independently of whether they themselves provide a substantia …", "paragraph_id": "para_528", "court_paragraph": 123 }, { "text": "124", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "That must be especially so since, in the context of unprovoked aggression against an independent State, in breach of international law, the economy of the aggressor country becomes or is likely to become a war economy. In those circumstances, it must be found that, as the Advocate General stated, in …", "paragraph_id": "para_530", "court_paragraph": 124 }, { "text": "125", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "It is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 104 to 124 of the present judgment that, contrary to the assertions of the third and fourth appellants, the General Court did not err in law, either in paragraphs 69 and 70 of the third judgment under appeal or in paragraphs 56 and 57 of t …", "paragraph_id": "para_532", "court_paragraph": 125 }, { "text": "126", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "In the third place, as regards the argument of the third and fourth appellants that it is apparent from primary EU law that listing criteria such as the (g) criterion must involve ‘personal conduct’ by the persons and entities to which they relate, it must be found that, at first instance, the third …", "paragraph_id": "para_534", "court_paragraph": 126 }, { "text": "127", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the second ground of appeal and the first part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and the second ground of appeal and the first part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_536", "court_paragraph": 127 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n The second complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the first to third parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the first complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the seventh ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "(1)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "128", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "By the second complaint in the second part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 105 of the second judgment under appeal, in the interpretation that it adopted of the term ‘substantial’ within the …", "paragraph_id": "para_540", "court_paragraph": 128 }, { "text": "129", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "By the first part of the fourth ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the third appellant submits that the interpretation adopted by the General Court, in paragraph 98 of the third judgment under appeal, of the concept of ‘revenue’ within the meaning of the (g) crit …", "paragraph_id": "para_542", "court_paragraph": 129 }, { "text": "130", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "The third appellant also claims, in the second part of his fourth ground of appeal, that insufficient reasons are given for the foregoing interpretation of the concept of ‘revenue’. In particular, the General Court failed to specify of what the revenue should consist, who should be considered to be a recipient of that revenue or what kinds of revenue should be regarded as being received by the Government of the Russian Federation.", "paragraph_id": "para_544", "court_paragraph": 130 }, { "text": "131", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "By the third part of his fourth ground of appeal, the third appellant submits that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 87 of the third judgment under appeal, in equating the term ‘substantial’ with the expression ‘not negligible’. There is a significant difference in meaning between that te …", "paragraph_id": "para_546", "court_paragraph": 131 }, { "text": "132", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "In Case C‑35/124 P, the arguments put forward by the fourth appellant in the first complaint in the second part of his fourth ground of appeal, which are directed against paragraphs 75 and 79 of the fourth judgment under appeal, correspond to the arguments, as set out in the preceding paragraph, advanced by the third appellant in support of the third part of the fourth ground of his appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_548", "court_paragraph": 132 }, { "text": "133", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "By the seventh ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant criticises the General Court for erring in law in finding, in paragraph 108 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that the question of whether the source of revenue referred to in the (g) criteri …", "paragraph_id": "para_550", "court_paragraph": 133 }, { "text": "134", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "The Council, supported in Case C‑35/24 P by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission, disputes the merits of the arguments of the second and fifth appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_552", "court_paragraph": 134 }, { "text": "(2)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "135", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "In the first place, the second to fourth appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 105 of the second judgment under appeal, in paragraph 87 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraph 75 of the fourth judgment under appeal, in defining the term ‘substantial’ as being synonymous with the expression ‘not negligible’.", "paragraph_id": "para_555", "court_paragraph": 135 }, { "text": "136", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "In that regard, it should be noted that, in those various paragraphs of the judgments referred to, the General Court held that the use of the adjective ‘substantial’ in the nominal group ‘substantial source of revenue’ implied that ‘that source of revenue must be significant and therefore not neglig …", "paragraph_id": "para_557", "court_paragraph": 136 }, { "text": "137", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "In the second place, the second to fifth appellants submit that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 105 of the second judgment under appeal, in paragraph 87 of the third judgment under appeal, in paragraphs 75 and 79 of the fourth judgment under appeal and in paragraph 108 of the fifth judg …", "paragraph_id": "para_559", "court_paragraph": 137 }, { "text": "138", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "In that regard, although it is true that whether or not a quantity is substantial can be ascertained in relative terms, that is to say, in relation to a reference quantity, that characteristic can also be ascertained in absolute terms. That is so of the revenue provided to a State’s government by a …", "paragraph_id": "para_561", "court_paragraph": 138 }, { "text": "139", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "In the third place, the third appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court, in paragraph 98 of the third judgment under appeal, adopted an overly broad and general interpretation of the concept of ‘revenue’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion, by including in that concept, without specification, ‘all the income generated by the sector of activities’ concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_563", "court_paragraph": 139 }, { "text": "140", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "In that regard, it is sufficient to note that, in view of its ordinary meaning in everyday language, to which the third appellant himself refers in his appeal, the concept of revenue necessarily encompasses all the financial resources that the economic sector concerned provides to the Government of …", "paragraph_id": "para_565", "court_paragraph": 140 }, { "text": "141", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "As regards the fact that paragraph 98 does not specify that concept further, and that the General Court’s reasoning is allegedly therefore vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons, suffice it to note that, in paragraph 98 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court rejected the arg …", "paragraph_id": "para_567", "court_paragraph": 141 }, { "text": "142", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the second complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the first three parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the first complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the seventh ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_569", "court_paragraph": 142 }, { "text": "2.\n  \n Grounds of appeal alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "143", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "The present subsection will examine the first ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the first and second complaints in the first part of the first ground of appeal and the third part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the fourth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the second ground of appeal and the first part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_572", "court_paragraph": 143 }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "144", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "In Case C‑696/23 P, by his first ground of appeal, which is divided into three parts, the first appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in finding that he could properly be classified as a ‘leading businessperson’ (in French, an expression equivalent to ‘influential businessperson’) within the meaning of the (g) criterion.", "paragraph_id": "para_575", "court_paragraph": 144 }, { "text": "145", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "By the first part of his first ground of appeal, the first appellant states that, in particular in paragraphs 51 and 63 of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court incorrectly found that the Council had been entitled to apply the (g) criterion to him and to classify him as a leading busine …", "paragraph_id": "para_577", "court_paragraph": 145 }, { "text": "146", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "By the second part of his first ground of appeal, the first appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraph 65 of the first judgment under appeal, read in conjunction with paragraphs 51 and 63 of that judgment, that the positions held by him within TMK and Group Sinara …", "paragraph_id": "para_579", "court_paragraph": 146 }, { "text": "147", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "In the third part of his first ground of appeal, the first appellant submits that, in paragraph 63 of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court, incorrectly, declined to examine whether, a number of days before the decision and regulation at issue were adopted, he had transferred the shares …", "paragraph_id": "para_581", "court_paragraph": 147 }, { "text": "148", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "By the first and second complaints in the first part of the first ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant criticises the General Court, in essence, for infringing the concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion. Fi …", "paragraph_id": "para_583", "court_paragraph": 148 }, { "text": "149", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "Second, in paragraphs 88 and 90 of the second judgment under appeal, in order to find that the second appellant could properly be classified as a ‘leading’ businessperson within the meaning of the (g) criterion, the General Court relied on a criterion that it had not set out in the definition of the …", "paragraph_id": "para_585", "court_paragraph": 149 }, { "text": "150", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "By the third part of his first ground of appeal, the second appellant claims that the General Court infringed the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence by failing to ascertain whether, in accordance with what it had nevertheless stipulated in paragraph 79 of the second jud …", "paragraph_id": "para_587", "court_paragraph": 150 }, { "text": "151", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "In Case C‑35/24 P, the fourth appellant, by the fourth part of his first ground of appeal, criticises the General Court for basing its interpretation of the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion, in paragraph 54 of the fourth judgment under appeal, on the presumption that a …", "paragraph_id": "para_589", "court_paragraph": 151 }, { "text": "152", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "By the second ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant criticises the General Court, in essence, for infringing the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion. First, in paragraph 92 of the fifth judgment under appeal, the Genera …", "paragraph_id": "para_591", "court_paragraph": 152 }, { "text": "153", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "Second, the teleological analysis carried out by the General Court is incorrect, inasmuch as, in paragraphs 52 and 89 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that court identified the objective of the restrictive measures resulting from the initial acts at issue and the first maintaining acts at issue i …", "paragraph_id": "para_593", "court_paragraph": 153 }, { "text": "154", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "By the first part of his fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant submits that the General Court infringed the principle of legal certainty by using, in paragraph 91 of the fifth judgment under appeal, an overly broad definition of the concept of ‘influence’. That definition, …", "paragraph_id": "para_595", "court_paragraph": 154 }, { "text": "155", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "The Council, supported in Case C‑35/24 P by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission, disputes the merits of the arguments of the first, second, fourth and fifth appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_597", "court_paragraph": 155 }, { "text": "156", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "In Case C‑696/23 P, the Council, although not formally pleading the inadmissibility of the first ground of appeal relied on by the first appellant in support of his appeal, first, claims that the first appellant does not indicate clearly, in support of the first part of that ground of appeal, which …", "paragraph_id": "para_599", "court_paragraph": 156 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "(1)   Admissibility of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "157", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "It follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 168(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appel …", "paragraph_id": "para_603", "court_paragraph": 157 }, { "text": "158", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that, under Article 256 TFEU and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, appeals are limited to points of law and the General Court has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts, except where the substantive inaccur …", "paragraph_id": "para_605", "court_paragraph": 158 }, { "text": "159", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, it should be noted, in the first place, that, contrary to the Council’s argument, the first appellant indicated, in the first part of his first ground of appeal, precisely which paragraphs of the first judgment under appeal he was seeking to criticise, that is to say, paragraphs …", "paragraph_id": "para_607", "court_paragraph": 159 }, { "text": "160", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "In the second place, it is true that, in paragraphs 45 to 51, 63 and 65 of the first judgment under appeal, at which the three parts of the first ground of appeal are directed, the General Court examined in turn, first, whether the reason on which the Council relied in adopting restrictive measures …", "paragraph_id": "para_609", "court_paragraph": 160 }, { "text": "161", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, it should be noted, in the light in particular of the case-law of the Court referred to in paragraph 158 of the present judgment that, by the first three parts of his first ground of appeal, the first appellant is not seeking to question the General Court’s factual findings and assessm …", "paragraph_id": "para_611", "court_paragraph": 161 }, { "text": "162", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "Accordingly, the first appellant’s criticisms relate to the General Court’s legal characterisation of the facts as constituting evidence justifying the use of the restrictive measures adopted against him (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 November 2012, Council v Bamba, C‑417/11 P , EU:C:2012:718 , pa …", "paragraph_id": "para_613", "court_paragraph": 162 }, { "text": "163", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "In the third place, where, on appeal, an appellant criticises the General Court for not using, in the judgment under appeal, the same interpretation of a provision of an EU act that it used in a different judgment delivered the same day, or in a later judgment, that claim cannot be declared inadmiss …", "paragraph_id": "para_615", "court_paragraph": 163 }, { "text": "164", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it must be found that the first ground of appeal relied on by the first appellant in support of his appeal in Case C‑696/23 P is admissible in its entirety.", "paragraph_id": "para_617", "court_paragraph": 164 }, { "text": "(2)   Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "(i)   The first ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the third part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the fourth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "165", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "To the extent that they are connected, the arguments of the first, second and fourth appellants will be examined below, while the arguments specific to each of those appellants will, where necessary, be examined separately.", "paragraph_id": "para_621", "court_paragraph": 165 }, { "text": "166", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "First, it must be observed that the first appellant misreads the second and third judgments under appeal, as the second appellant also misreads the second judgment under appeal and the fourth appellant misreads the fourth judgment under appeal. The General Court did not, either in paragraphs 79 to 8 …", "paragraph_id": "para_623", "court_paragraph": 166 }, { "text": "167", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "First of all, in paragraph 79 of the second judgment under appeal, criticised by both the first and the second appellants, in paragraph 66 of the third judgment under appeal, criticised by the first appellant, and in paragraph 54 of the fourth judgment under appeal, criticised by the fourth appellan …", "paragraph_id": "para_625", "court_paragraph": 167 }, { "text": "168", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "Next, in paragraph 80 of the second judgment under appeal, criticised by the first appellant, the General Court held that the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion corresponded to the economic importance that may attach to businesspersons in the light, as the case may be, of …", "paragraph_id": "para_627", "court_paragraph": 168 }, { "text": "169", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "Last, in paragraph 81 of the second judgment under appeal and in paragraph 68 of the third judgment under appeal, which are criticised by the first appellant, the General Court found that such an interpretation of the concept in question, which disregards any form of link that the businesspersons ma …", "paragraph_id": "para_629", "court_paragraph": 169 }, { "text": "170", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "It must therefore be found that the General Court neither applied any form of presumption as regards the ability to exert influence or pressure nor reversed the burden of proof. Similarly, the General Court did not find, in paragraphs 79 to 81 of the second judgment under appeal or in paragraphs 66 …", "paragraph_id": "para_631", "court_paragraph": 170 }, { "text": "171", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "However, it is appropriate to examine, second, whether, independently of the considerations set out by the General Court in the second and third judgments under appeal, that court, in the first judgment under appeal, correctly understood the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of that criterio …", "paragraph_id": "para_633", "court_paragraph": 171 }, { "text": "172", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "In that context, it is appropriate to determine, in accordance with the rules for interpreting provisions of EU law set out in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the present judgment, whether the interpretation of the concept of ‘influence’ thus adopted by the General Court in the first judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_635", "court_paragraph": 172 }, { "text": "173", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "As regards the term ‘leading’ (in French, a term equivalent to ‘influential’), it appears that all the language versions of the (g) criterion use terms with comparable meanings, inasmuch as they reflect the notion that the businessperson must be important, leading or eminent. Those versions provide …", "paragraph_id": "para_637", "court_paragraph": 173 }, { "text": "174", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "Moreover, the terms used in the various language versions, by themselves and completely without context, do not in any way imply a link with any sphere, such as the economic or the political sphere, or with any given persons or entities, such as the government of a State.", "paragraph_id": "para_639", "court_paragraph": 174 }, { "text": "175", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "Accordingly, as the Advocate General stated in point 32 of her Opinion in Case C‑696/23 P, the adjective ‘leading’, in the absence of any indication in the wording of the (g) criterion that the influence must be exerted on the Government of the Russian Federation or in a political context more broad …", "paragraph_id": "para_641", "court_paragraph": 175 }, { "text": "176", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "Admittedly, the (g) criterion refers to that government, so that the concept of ‘influence’ could also be considered to exist in a political context. However, as the General Court stated in paragraphs 79 to 81 of the second judgment under appeal and in paragraphs 66 and 68 of the third judgment unde …", "paragraph_id": "para_643", "court_paragraph": 176 }, { "text": "177", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "It is therefore clear from the wording of the (g) criterion that the criterion involves demonstrating only that the businesspersons are of significant importance in an economic sector that is lucrative for the Government of the Russian Federation, irrespective of any links that those persons may have with that government and of whether they are actually important to it or actually able to influence it.", "paragraph_id": "para_645", "court_paragraph": 177 }, { "text": "178", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "In the circumstances, it should be found that, as the General Court noted in paragraph 80 of the second judgment under appeal, to which the first appellant refers, the concept of the ‘influence’ of leading businesspersons in the economic sector in which they pursue their activities can be understood …", "paragraph_id": "para_647", "court_paragraph": 178 }, { "text": "179", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "That interpretation is borne out by the objectives pursued by the (g) criterion. In that regard, it should be noted that, as the General Court stated, in essence, in paragraph 90 of the first judgment under appeal and as recalled in paragraph 121 of the present judgment, those objectives consist in …", "paragraph_id": "para_649", "court_paragraph": 179 }, { "text": "180", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "As the Advocate General noted in point 44 of her Opinion in Case C‑696/23 P, those objectives can be achieved by targeting restrictive measures at businesspersons who, because they are of significant importance in an economic sector that is lucrative for the Government of the Russian Federation, con …", "paragraph_id": "para_651", "court_paragraph": 180 }, { "text": "181", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "Accordingly, it is apparent from paragraphs 173 to 180 of the present judgment that the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion must be understood as corresponding to businesspersons who are of significant importance in economic sectors that are lucrative for the Government of …", "paragraph_id": "para_653", "court_paragraph": 181 }, { "text": "182", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it is necessary to reject the first appellant’s argument that, by finding that he could properly be classified as a leading businessperson in view of the positions that he held within TMK and Group Sinara, irrespective of any link with the Government of the Russian Federation, the General Court, in paragraphs 51, 63 and 65 of the first judgment under appeal, misinterpreted the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion.", "paragraph_id": "para_655", "court_paragraph": 182 }, { "text": "183", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "Third, as regards the first appellant’s arguments that the General Court wrongly found, in paragraphs 63 and 65 of the first judgment under appeal, that the loss of his control over TMK and Group Sinara following the transfer of his shares was not a relevant factor to be taken into account for the p …", "paragraph_id": "para_657", "court_paragraph": 183 }, { "text": "184", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "It is apparent from paragraph 181 of the present judgment that the concept of the ‘influence’ of the businesspersons covered by the (g) criterion is not confined solely to businesspersons who, as a result of their functions within a company or of the shares at their disposal, exercise actual and eff …", "paragraph_id": "para_659", "court_paragraph": 184 }, { "text": "185", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "It is apparent, in essence, from the General Court’s factual findings and assessments in paragraphs 47 to 51 and 62 of the first judgment under appeal, with which the first appellant does not take issue in his appeal, that the first appellant’s status and the positions he held, in the light also of …", "paragraph_id": "para_661", "court_paragraph": 185 }, { "text": "186", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the first ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the third part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the fourth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_663", "court_paragraph": 186 }, { "text": "(ii)   The first and second complaints in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the second ground of appeal and the first part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "187", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "In the first place, in the first complaint in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the first part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the second and fifth appellants respectively submit that, by defining the concept of influence within the meaning of the …", "paragraph_id": "para_666", "court_paragraph": 187 }, { "text": "188", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "In that regard, it is apparent from settled case-law that the principle of legal certainty requires, on the one hand, that the rules of law be clear and precise and, on the other, that their application be foreseeable for those subject to the law, in particular where they may have adverse consequenc …", "paragraph_id": "para_668", "court_paragraph": 188 }, { "text": "189", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "Furthermore, there cannot be a breach of the principle of legal certainty on the sole ground that the Courts of the European Union have to use methods of interpretation other than a literal interpretation of a provision of general application (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 September 2021, Irish Ferries, C‑570/19 , EU:C:2021:664 , paragraph  167 ).", "paragraph_id": "para_670", "court_paragraph": 189 }, { "text": "190", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "It must be borne in mind that, in paragraph 91 of the fifth judgment under appeal, the General Court found that businesspersons were ‘influential’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion as a result of their importance in the sector in which they are involved and of the importance of that sector for …", "paragraph_id": "para_672", "court_paragraph": 190 }, { "text": "191", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "In ruling to that effect, the General Court understood the concept of ‘influence’ in economic terms and provided sufficiently clear and precise criteria for applying it, even though that court was not required to refer in detail to the hypotheses in which the concept could apply because, as is also …", "paragraph_id": "para_674", "court_paragraph": 191 }, { "text": "192", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "Furthermore, since, as is apparent from paragraph 178 of the present judgment, the General Court was able correctly to find, in paragraph 91 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that it follows from the concept of ‘influence’ that it covers situations in which a businessperson is important in the eco …", "paragraph_id": "para_676", "court_paragraph": 192 }, { "text": "193", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "In the second place, by the second complaint advanced in support of the first part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant claims, in essence, that, in paragraphs 88 to 90 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court used criteria and factors that it did not …", "paragraph_id": "para_678", "court_paragraph": 193 }, { "text": "194", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "In that regard, it is true that, in paragraph 80 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court identified four non-cumulative criteria on the basis of which a businessperson can be found to be ‘leading’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion, and that none of those criteria refers to the e …", "paragraph_id": "para_680", "court_paragraph": 194 }, { "text": "195", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, as is apparent from paragraphs 178 and 191 of the present judgment, the influence of a businessperson can be established using various economic criteria depending on the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the economic importance of the company for which a businessperson pursues hi …", "paragraph_id": "para_682", "court_paragraph": 195 }, { "text": "196", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "As regards the claim that, in paragraph 89 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court used a fact not related to the criteria referred to in the definition of the concept of ‘influence’ given in paragraph 80 of that judgment, namely the second appellant’s attendance at a meeting organise …", "paragraph_id": "para_684", "court_paragraph": 196 }, { "text": "197", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "In addition, the fact that account was taken of the meeting of 24 February 2022 must be understood not as meaning that the appellant is a leading businessperson because of his links with the Government of the Russian Federation or with its president, but as meaning that his significant importance in the economic sector in which he is involved is confirmed by the fact that he is one of the oligarchs to have been invited to attend that meeting.", "paragraph_id": "para_686", "court_paragraph": 197 }, { "text": "198", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "In the third place, by his second ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant takes issue with the General Court, in essence, for not making a comparative analysis, in paragraph 92 of the fifth judgment under appeal, of the term ‘leading’ in the various language versions of the (g) crit …", "paragraph_id": "para_688", "court_paragraph": 198 }, { "text": "199", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "As regards the first of those two complaints, the fifth appellant misreads paragraph 92 of the fifth judgment under appeal. In that paragraph, the General Court held, in essence, that, even if there were a divergence between the various language versions of the term ‘leading’ in the wording of that …", "paragraph_id": "para_690", "court_paragraph": 199 }, { "text": "200", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "In any event, it should be noted that there is no divergence between the 24 language versions of the term ‘leading’, since they can be construed uniformly, as is clear from paragraphs 173 and 174 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_692", "court_paragraph": 200 }, { "text": "201", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "As regards the second complaint referred to in paragraph 198 of the present judgment, it should be noted that, as is apparent from paragraphs 118 and 121 of the present judgment and as the General Court set out in paragraphs 52 and 89 of the fifth judgment under appeal, the objective of the EU acts …", "paragraph_id": "para_694", "court_paragraph": 201 }, { "text": "202", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the first and second complaints in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the second ground of appeal and the first part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_696", "court_paragraph": 202 }, { "text": "B.   Grounds of appeal alleging that the General Court infringed the principle of proportionality and Article 52(1) of the Charter, and the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "203", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "The present section combines, in addition to the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the grounds of appeal alleging errors of law by the General Court in relation to the principle of proportionality and the requirements under Article 52(1)of the Charter, that is to say, the third and fourth grounds of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P and the third ground of appeal and the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_699", "court_paragraph": 203 }, { "text": "1.\n  \n The third ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, alleging an infringement of the first sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "204", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "By the third ground of appeal in support of his appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the first appellant claims that, in paragraph 80 of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in finding, in essence, that the limitation on the exercise of his fundamental rights by the restrictive meas …", "paragraph_id": "para_703", "court_paragraph": 204 }, { "text": "205", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "The Council disputes the merits of the first appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_705", "court_paragraph": 205 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "206", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "It must be borne in mind that the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter and the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter are not absolute and that their exercise may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of p …", "paragraph_id": "para_708", "court_paragraph": 206 }, { "text": "207", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "In that context, the first sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that limitations may be placed on the exercise of those rights, on condition that they are provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_710", "court_paragraph": 207 }, { "text": "208", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the requirement that such limitations must be provided for by law (the principle of legality) implies that the act which permits the interference with those rights should itself define the scope of the limitation on the exercise of the right concerned, …", "paragraph_id": "para_712", "court_paragraph": 208 }, { "text": "209", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, it is true that the General Court, in paragraph 80 of the first judgment under appeal, confined itself, in its examination of the principle of legality, to noting that the restrictive measures that the acts at issue entail for the first appellant were set out in acts of general …", "paragraph_id": "para_714", "court_paragraph": 209 }, { "text": "210", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "However, according to settled case-law, if the grounds of a decision of the General Court reveal an infringement of EU law but the operative part of that decision can be seen to be well founded on other legal grounds, that infringement is not capable of leading to the setting aside of that decision and a substitution of grounds must be made (judgment of 4 October 2024, Commission and Council v Front Polisario, C‑778/21 P and C‑798/21 P , EU:C:2024:833 , paragraph  178 ).", "paragraph_id": "para_716", "court_paragraph": 210 }, { "text": "211", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "In that regard, Article 52(1) of the Charter admittedly requires that any limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter must be provided for by law, which implies that the legal basis which permits the interference with that right must itself define, clearly and precise …", "paragraph_id": "para_718", "court_paragraph": 211 }, { "text": "212", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "The General Court examined, in essence, whether that requirement is complied with, in its analysis of the first plea in law in the action, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_720", "court_paragraph": 212 }, { "text": "213", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "In particular, it found, in paragraphs 83, 84 and 91 to 93 of the first judgment under appeal, that the conditions for applying limitations on the exercise of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 7 and 17 of the Charter and the scope of those limitations are defined clearly and precisely by …", "paragraph_id": "para_722", "court_paragraph": 213 }, { "text": "214", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it appears that the General Court’s finding, in paragraph 80 of the first judgment under appeal, that the restrictive measures which the acts at issue entail for the first appellant are provided for by law within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter, is well founded in the light of reasons contained in a different part of that judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_724", "court_paragraph": 214 }, { "text": "215", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, the third ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P should be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_726", "court_paragraph": 215 }, { "text": "2.\n  \n The fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P and the third ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, which allege an infringement of the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter, and the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "216", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "The fourth ground of appeal relied on in support of the appeal in Case C‑696/23 P is divided into six parts.", "paragraph_id": "para_730", "court_paragraph": 216 }, { "text": "217", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "By the first part of that ground of appeal, the first appellant submits, in essence, that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 88 and 90 of the first judgment under appeal, that the restrictive measures imposed on him were appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objecti …", "paragraph_id": "para_732", "court_paragraph": 217 }, { "text": "218", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "By the second part of his fourth ground of appeal, the first appellant criticises the General Court for finding, in paragraph 94 of the first judgment under appeal, that, notwithstanding the evidence submitted during the proceedings before the General Court, the argument that the restrictive measures established by the decision and regulation at issue in actual fact serve the interests of the Russian Federation was not substantiated to the requisite legal standard.", "paragraph_id": "para_734", "court_paragraph": 218 }, { "text": "219", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "Under the third part of his fourth ground of appeal, the first appellant submits that the General Court failed to respond to his argument that the restrictive measures imposed on him are unreasonable because, by purchasing fossil fuels, the Member States contribute to financing the costs of the war waged by the Russian Federation.", "paragraph_id": "para_736", "court_paragraph": 219 }, { "text": "220", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "In support of the fourth part of his fourth ground of appeal, the first appellant submits that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 90 of the first judgment under appeal, by disregarding the fact that he was in practice unable to circumvent the restrictions imposed, and that the General Court could have found that to be so if it had taken account of the evidence offered in respect of the transfer of his shares.", "paragraph_id": "para_738", "court_paragraph": 220 }, { "text": "221", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "The first appellant submits, by the fifth and sixth parts of his fourth ground of appeal, that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 81, 82 and 93 and in paragraphs 83, 84, 91 and 92 of the first judgment under appeal respectively, by giving undue weight, for the purposes of reviewing the pr …", "paragraph_id": "para_740", "court_paragraph": 221 }, { "text": "222", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "In support of his third ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant criticises paragraph 143 of the second judgment under appeal, inasmuch as, contrary to what it had declared in that paragraph, the General Court did not ascertain whether the restrictive measures established and mainta …", "paragraph_id": "para_742", "court_paragraph": 222 }, { "text": "223", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "By the second part of his fourth ground of appeal in the same case, the second appellant claims that paragraph 166 of the second judgment under appeal, which relates to the proportionality of the limitation on the exercise of his fundamental rights and refers in particular to the analysis of proportionality in paragraph 143 of that judgment, is therefore likewise vitiated by an error of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_744", "court_paragraph": 223 }, { "text": "224", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "The Council counters that, in Case C‑696/23 P, by the first, second and fourth parts of his fourth ground of appeal, the first appellant is seeking to challenge the General Court’s assessment of the facts, and that such a review of the facts, in the absence of any claim of distortion, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_746", "court_paragraph": 224 }, { "text": "225", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "As to the remainder, the Council disputes the merits of the arguments of the first and second appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_748", "court_paragraph": 225 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "(1)   Admissibility of the first, second and fourth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "226", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "As regards the admissibility of the first and fourth parts of the fourth ground of appeal relied on in support of the appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, it must be found, in the light of the Court’s case-law recalled in paragraph 158 of the present judgment, that the first appellant is not seeking to challe …", "paragraph_id": "para_752", "court_paragraph": 226 }, { "text": "227", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "By contrast, it must be found that, by the second part of the fourth ground of appeal relied on in Case C‑696/23 P, the first appellant is seeking a reassessment of the evidence that he had provided in support of his action at first instance in order to demonstrate that the restrictive measures at i …", "paragraph_id": "para_754", "court_paragraph": 227 }, { "text": "228", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "It follows that only the first and fourth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P are admissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_756", "court_paragraph": 228 }, { "text": "(2)   Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "(i)   Preliminary observations", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "229", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "As regards, first, the proportionality of the restrictive measures enacted by the European Union or of the general rules laid down in EU acts imposing restrictive measures, the Court has noted that the principle of proportionality requires that measures implemented through provisions of EU law shoul …", "paragraph_id": "para_760", "court_paragraph": 229 }, { "text": "230", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "As regards judicial review of compliance with the requirements flowing from the principle of proportionality, it should be borne in mind that the Court has recognised that the Council has broad discretion when establishing a restrictive measures regime forming part of the common foreign and security …", "paragraph_id": "para_762", "court_paragraph": 230 }, { "text": "231", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "Second, as recalled in paragraph 206 of the present judgment, the exercise of fundamental rights, such as those enshrined in Articles 7 and 17 of the Charter, and in Article 16 of the Charter, on the freedom to pursue an economic activity, may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of pu …", "paragraph_id": "para_764", "court_paragraph": 231 }, { "text": "232", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "In accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by it must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms and, subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made to those rights and f …", "paragraph_id": "para_766", "court_paragraph": 232 }, { "text": "233", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "It is apparent from paragraphs 229 to 232 of the present judgment that, in order to determine whether the restrictive measures enacted by the European Union or the general rules laid down in an EU act imposing restrictive measures comply with the principle of proportionality, or whether the interfer …", "paragraph_id": "para_768", "court_paragraph": 233 }, { "text": "234", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "It is therefore in the light of the foregoing analytical framework that it is appropriate to examine whether, as the first and second appellants submit, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the proportionality of the restrictive measures adopted at EU level against the second appellan …", "paragraph_id": "para_770", "court_paragraph": 234 }, { "text": "235", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "The objective pursued by the restrictive measures at issue consists in exerting pressure on the Government of the Russian Federation and increasing the costs of its actions to undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. It is a legitimate objective and is among the …", "paragraph_id": "para_772", "court_paragraph": 235 }, { "text": "(ii)   Analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "236", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "In the first place, as regards the second appellant’s argument that, in its analysis of, respectively, the proportionality of the restrictive measures adopted against him at EU level and the proportionality of the interference with his fundamental rights resulting from those measures, the General Co …", "paragraph_id": "para_775", "court_paragraph": 236 }, { "text": "237", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "First, the references to the case-law of the General Court made in paragraph 143 of the second judgment under appeal, in particular the reference to paragraph 116 of the judgment of 12 March 2014, Al Assad v Council ( T‑202/12 , EU:T:2014:113 ), in which the General Court found the restrictive measu …", "paragraph_id": "para_777", "court_paragraph": 237 }, { "text": "238", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "Second, since paragraph 166 of the second judgment under appeal refers to the analysis contained in particular in paragraph 143 of that judgment, it is clear that the General Court examined whether those measures were appropriate in the light of the objectives they pursued and found that they were a …", "paragraph_id": "para_779", "court_paragraph": 238 }, { "text": "239", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "In the second place, it is necessary to examine, first, the first and fourth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, by which the first appellant alleges that the General Court, in determining whether the limitation on the exercise of his fundamental rights was proportionate, erred …", "paragraph_id": "para_781", "court_paragraph": 239 }, { "text": "240", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "First of all, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, arguments directed against grounds included in a decision of the General Court purely for the sake of completeness cannot lead to the decision being set aside and are therefore ineffective (judgment of 2 October 2019, Créd …", "paragraph_id": "para_783", "court_paragraph": 240 }, { "text": "241", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "Next, as regards the first appellant’s argument that the General Court’s reasoning was inconsistent when it found, in paragraph 90 of the first judgment under appeal, that he should have indicated which measures, which would be less restrictive but equally effective in the light of the objectives pu …", "paragraph_id": "para_785", "court_paragraph": 241 }, { "text": "242", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "Last, as regards specifically the fourth part of the first ground of appeal, taking issue with paragraph 90 of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court was not required, in that paragraph, to examine whether the first appellant, as a result of the alleged loss of his control over TMK and G …", "paragraph_id": "para_787", "court_paragraph": 242 }, { "text": "243", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "Second, it is also necessary to reject the third part of the fourth ground of appeal by which the first appellant criticises the General Court for failing to respond to his argument that the restrictive measures imposed on him are unreasonable because the Member States, by purchasing fossil fuels, c …", "paragraph_id": "para_789", "court_paragraph": 243 }, { "text": "244", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "As regards, third, the fifth and sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal, by which the first appellant criticises the General Court, in essence, for giving undue weight, when reviewing the proportionality of the interference with his fundamental rights, in paragraphs 81 to 84 and 92 and 93 of the …", "paragraph_id": "para_791", "court_paragraph": 244 }, { "text": "245", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "First, paragraphs 81 to 84 of the first judgment under appeal relate not to the General Court’s examination of the requirement of proportionality under the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter, but to its examination of the requirement, in the first sentence of that provision, that any li …", "paragraph_id": "para_793", "court_paragraph": 245 }, { "text": "246", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "Second, as regards paragraphs 92 and 93 of the first judgment under appeal, suffice it to note that the first appellant has not made clear the reasons why the General Court allegedly gave ‘undue weight’ to the elements referred to in them. In those paragraphs, that court merely noted that the period …", "paragraph_id": "para_795", "court_paragraph": 246 }, { "text": "247", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the first and third to sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P and the third ground of appeal and the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_797", "court_paragraph": 247 }, { "text": "3.\n  \n The second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "248", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "In the second part of the fourth ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant claims that the definition of the concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ given by the General Court in paragraph 91 of the judgment under appeal constitutes a disproportionate i …", "paragraph_id": "para_801", "court_paragraph": 248 }, { "text": "249", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "The Council asserts that, because it is unclear, the second part of the fourth ground of appeal must be declared inadmissible. It also disputes the merits of the fifth appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_803", "court_paragraph": 249 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "250", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "As a preliminary point, in the light of the Court’s case-law referred to in paragraph 157 of the present judgment, it must be found that, contrary to the Council’s assertion, the complaint advanced in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P is, albeit succinct, sufficiently comprehensible.", "paragraph_id": "para_806", "court_paragraph": 250 }, { "text": "251", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "As regards the substance, it must be recalled that, in accordance with a general principle of interpretation, an EU measure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity and in conformity with primary law as a whole and, in particular, with the provisions of the Charter (judgment of 15 February 2016, N., C‑601/15 PPU , EU:C:2016:84 , paragraph  48 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_808", "court_paragraph": 251 }, { "text": "252", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, in paragraph 91 of the fifth judgment under appeal, the General Court found essentially that, in order to fall within the (g) criterion, businesspersons had to be regarded as being ‘leading’ as a result of their importance, in the light of various economic criteria, in the secto …", "paragraph_id": "para_810", "court_paragraph": 252 }, { "text": "253", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "In that regard, it must be found, first, that the (g) criterion, for the same reasons as those set out in paragraph 235 of the present judgment, meets a legitimate objective among those pursued under the common foreign and security policy of the European Union, that is to say, as the General Court r …", "paragraph_id": "para_812", "court_paragraph": 253 }, { "text": "254", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "Second, for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 52 to 55 of the fifth judgment under appeal, with which the fifth appellant does not take issue, it should be found that the restrictive measures adopted on the basis of the (g) criterion are not manifestly inappropriate in the light of that objective inasmuch as they are not manifestly inappropriate for achieving it.", "paragraph_id": "para_814", "court_paragraph": 254 }, { "text": "255", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "Third, it is necessary to examine whether the interference with the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter, resulting from the restrictive measures taken on the basis of the (g) criterion, is disproportionate inasmuch as it exceeds what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.", "paragraph_id": "para_816", "court_paragraph": 255 }, { "text": "256", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "In the light of an objective as fundamental as that of putting an end to aggression against an independent State such as Ukraine in breach of international law and of protecting the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of that third country, that interference cannot be regarded as being so disproportionate and intolerable that it manifestly exceeds what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.", "paragraph_id": "para_818", "court_paragraph": 256 }, { "text": "257", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it cannot be found that, as a result of the interpretation adopted, correctly, by the General Court of the concept of ‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion, the interference with the fifth appellant’s fundamental rights resulting from the restrictive measures adopted on the basis of that criterion is disproportionate.", "paragraph_id": "para_820", "court_paragraph": 257 }, { "text": "258", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_822", "court_paragraph": 258 }, { "text": "C.   Grounds of appeal alleging errors of law by the General Court in its analysis of the pleas of illegality in respect of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "259", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "The present section examines the second part of the third ground of appeal in Cases C‑711/23 P and C‑35/24 P and the third ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, by which the third to fifth appellants take issue with the General Court’s analysis of the pleas of illegality in respect of the (g) criterion raised by them at first instance on the basis of Article 277 TFEU.", "paragraph_id": "para_825", "court_paragraph": 259 }, { "text": "1.\n  \n The third ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "260", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "By the third ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in rejecting the plea of illegality in respect of the (g) criterion that he had raised before it.", "paragraph_id": "para_829", "court_paragraph": 260 }, { "text": "261", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "The reasoning followed by the General Court in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal is incorrect because it implies that Article 215(2) TFEU allows the Council to adopt restrictive measures against any category of persons it wishes, even though they have no link with the regime of the thi …", "paragraph_id": "para_831", "court_paragraph": 261 }, { "text": "262", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "The fifth appellant adds that the European Union has made creative use of those two articles to enable it to adopt regimes of ‘smart sanctions’, that is to say, more targeted and selective measures such as the freezing of funds and travel bans in relation to individuals or entities that are associat …", "paragraph_id": "para_833", "court_paragraph": 262 }, { "text": "263", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "The fifth appellant adds that the requirement for such a link is necessary in order to avoid giving the EU institutions a blank cheque enabling them to impose restrictive measures on any person or any category of persons whatsoever. By taking the smart sanctions route, the European Union opted for a regime of fairer sanctions reflecting a European Union conceived as an area of rights and freedoms.", "paragraph_id": "para_835", "court_paragraph": 263 }, { "text": "264", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "The Council disputes the merits of the fifth appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_837", "court_paragraph": 264 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "265", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "By his third ground of appeal, the fifth appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, in finding that, on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU, any person may be subject to restrictive measures, even where there is not a sufficient link between the category of persons targeted by those measures and the third country concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_840", "court_paragraph": 265 }, { "text": "266", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as the General Court correctly noted in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, Article 215(2) TFEU provides for the possibility that the Council may adopt restrictive measures not only against the leaders of a third country and the persons or …", "paragraph_id": "para_842", "court_paragraph": 266 }, { "text": "267", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "That does not mean, however, that the Council is entitled to adopt restrictive measures, on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU, against persons and entities that have no objective link with that country.", "paragraph_id": "para_844", "court_paragraph": 267 }, { "text": "268", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "It is clear from the wording of Article 215(2) TFEU that, as the General Court itself noted in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, on the basis of that provision, the Council can adopt restrictive measures against natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities only where so provided for by a decision adopted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title V of the EU Treaty, which include Article 29 of that Treaty.", "paragraph_id": "para_846", "court_paragraph": 268 }, { "text": "269", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "In that regard, it must be borne in mind that Article 29 TEU empowers the Council to adopt decisions which define the approach of the European Union to a particular matter of a geographical or thematic nature, an approach that may encompass restrictive measures against natural or legal persons, grou …", "paragraph_id": "para_848", "court_paragraph": 269 }, { "text": "270", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "The broad discretion available to the Council in that respect is attributable to the wide scope of the European Union’s aims and objectives in that field, as set out in Article 3(5) and Article 21 TEU and in the specific provisions relating to the European Union’s common foreign and security policy, in particular in Articles 23 and 24 TEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15 , EU:C:2017:236 , paragraph  88 ).", "paragraph_id": "para_850", "court_paragraph": 270 }, { "text": "271", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "Specifically, as is apparent, in essence, from paragraph 230 of the present judgment, the Council has broad discretion as regards the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures adopted in that field and as regards the definition and scope of the general criteria on the basis of which t …", "paragraph_id": "para_852", "court_paragraph": 271 }, { "text": "272", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, despite the Council’s broad discretion to define the persons and entities subject to restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in the field of the common foreign and security policy and the legal criteria on the basis of which restrictive measures can be imposed, any decision …", "paragraph_id": "para_854", "court_paragraph": 272 }, { "text": "273", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "In that context, such a decision must, in the criteria it lays down, establish an objective link between those categories of persons or entities and the third country concerned, in the light of the objective thus defined and delimited. In particular, those categories must be established in such a wa …", "paragraph_id": "para_856", "court_paragraph": 273 }, { "text": "274", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "When the Council adopts a regulation under Article 215(2) TFEU, that regulation in turn must inevitably reflect such a link, and cannot change its scope. Since the purpose of such a regulation is to implement the decision in the field of the common foreign and security policy taken on the basis of A …", "paragraph_id": "para_858", "court_paragraph": 274 }, { "text": "275", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "By stating, in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that the Council is empowered, under Article 215(2) TFEU, to adopt restrictive measures against ‘any “natural or legal person”, “non-State entity” or “group” whatsoever on the sole condition that a decision adopted in accordance with Ch …", "paragraph_id": "para_860", "court_paragraph": 275 }, { "text": "276", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "That misreading by the fifth appellant of paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal is further confirmed by the fact that, in paragraph 41 of that judgment, which the fifth appellant does not criticise, the General Court emphasised the fact that, as regards the (g) criterion, there was at the …", "paragraph_id": "para_862", "court_paragraph": 276 }, { "text": "277", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, the third ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P should be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_864", "court_paragraph": 277 }, { "text": "2.\n  \n The second part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "278", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "By the second part of the third ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the third appellant claims that, even assuming that the ‘substantial source of revenue’ to which the (g) criterion refers must come from the economic sectors rather than from the leading businesspersons, the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 101 et seq. of the third judgment under appeal, by rejecting his plea of illegality in respect of that criterion.", "paragraph_id": "para_868", "court_paragraph": 278 }, { "text": "279", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "The General Court adopted an ‘objective’ interpretation of that criterion, which allows the Council to enact restrictive measures against leading businesspersons solely on the ground that they are involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russi …", "paragraph_id": "para_870", "court_paragraph": 279 }, { "text": "280", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "Also under that second part, the third appellant submits that, in breach of the principle of legal certainty, the Council failed to identify clearly and in advance the economic sector in which he was supposedly involved.", "paragraph_id": "para_872", "court_paragraph": 280 }, { "text": "281", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "The fourth appellant, for his part, also claims, by the second part of the third ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in case C‑35/24 P, that the General Court erred in law, in the fourth judgment under appeal, in rejecting the plea of illegality in respect of the (g) criterion that h …", "paragraph_id": "para_874", "court_paragraph": 281 }, { "text": "282", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "The General Court’s interpretation of the concept of the ‘influence’ of the businesspersons covered by the (g) criterion, that is to say, the requirement that those businesspersons be of relative importance in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russ …", "paragraph_id": "para_876", "court_paragraph": 282 }, { "text": "283", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "The fourth appellant also states that, while the fact that a leading businessperson within the meaning of the (g) criterion resigns from his or her positions or sells his or her shares in an undertaking over which he or she exercises control would certainly allow for the lifting of the restrictive m …", "paragraph_id": "para_878", "court_paragraph": 283 }, { "text": "284", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "The Council, supported in Case C‑35/24 P by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission, disputes the merits of the arguments of the third and fourth appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_880", "court_paragraph": 284 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "285", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, as already indicated in paragraph 126 of the present judgment, the arguments advanced in the alternative by the third and fourth appellants in support of the second part of the third ground of their respective appeals must be read in conjunction with the arguments they set out in the first part of those grounds of appeal, which are summarised in paragraphs 94 and 96 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_883", "court_paragraph": 285 }, { "text": "286", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it must be found that, by that second part, the third and fourth appellants criticise the General Court, in essence, for erring in law in finding, in paragraphs 104 to 109 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraphs 87 to 92 of the fourth judgment under appeal respectively, that the (g) criterion was not unlawful.", "paragraph_id": "para_885", "court_paragraph": 286 }, { "text": "287", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "In particular, those appellants argue that the influence that businesspersons have in the economic sectors in which they are involved cannot be equated with personal conduct or, at least, with personal conduct that is sufficiently well-defined to enable them to change their conduct in such a way tha …", "paragraph_id": "para_887", "court_paragraph": 287 }, { "text": "288", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "As a further preliminary point, in so far as the third appellant criticises the Council for infringing the principle of legal certainty by failing to identify clearly and in advance the economic sector in which he was supposedly involved, it must be borne in mind that, according to the first paragra …", "paragraph_id": "para_889", "court_paragraph": 288 }, { "text": "289", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "With the benefit of those preliminary observations, it must be borne in mind that, as is apparent from paragraph 271 of the present judgment, the legality of a criterion serving as the basis for the imposition of restrictive measures can be affected only if that criterion is manifestly inappropriate …", "paragraph_id": "para_891", "court_paragraph": 289 }, { "text": "290", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "As the Commission stated, in essence, at the hearing before the Court and as the Advocate General set out in point 86 of her Opinion in Case C‑711/23 P and in point 83 of her Opinion in Case C‑35/24 P, provided that a listing criterion is not manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objective pur …", "paragraph_id": "para_893", "court_paragraph": 290 }, { "text": "291", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "In the cases at hand, the General Court held, correctly, in paragraphs 107 and 108 of the third judgment under appeal, read in conjunction with paragraphs 66 and 67 of that judgment, and in paragraphs 90 and 91 of the fourth judgment under appeal, read in conjunction with paragraph 54 of that judgme …", "paragraph_id": "para_895", "court_paragraph": 291 }, { "text": "292", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "It is clear from the foregoing that the (g) criterion targets categories of persons or entities that have an objective link with the Government of the Russian Federation, with the effect that it appears to be appropriate in order to achieve the objective referred to in the preceding paragraph and that it cannot therefore be regarded as unlawful.", "paragraph_id": "para_897", "court_paragraph": 292 }, { "text": "293", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it is necessary to find that the General Court correctly held that the (g) criterion was not vitiated by illegality.", "paragraph_id": "para_899", "court_paragraph": 293 }, { "text": "294", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the second part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and Case C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_901", "court_paragraph": 294 }, { "text": "D.   Grounds of appeal alleging errors of law by the General Court in its analysis of the principle of equal treatment", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "1.\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "295", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "By the first part of the fourth ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant alleges that, in paragraphs 135, 137 and 138 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment. In accordance with the case-law …", "paragraph_id": "para_905", "court_paragraph": 295 }, { "text": "296", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "Furthermore, by contrast with the General Court’s finding, such unequal treatment cannot be qualified by the principle of legality referred to in paragraph 138 of the second judgment under appeal. The principle of equal treatment would otherwise be rendered meaningless since it would be impossible to prove any inequality in the context of restrictive measures, thereby depriving the persons subject to such measures of any remedy.", "paragraph_id": "para_907", "court_paragraph": 296 }, { "text": "297", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "By their fifth ground of appeal relied on in support of their appeals in cases C‑711/23 P and C‑35/24 P respectively, the third and fourth appellants claim that, in paragraphs 143 to 145 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraphs 124 to 131 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the General …", "paragraph_id": "para_909", "court_paragraph": 297 }, { "text": "298", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "The third and fourth appellants rely on arguments similar to those summarised in paragraph 296 of the present judgment in order to claim that the foregoing considerations are not called into question by the principle of legality to which the General Court refers in paragraph 145 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraph 129 of the fourth judgment under appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_911", "court_paragraph": 298 }, { "text": "299", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "The Council, supported in Case C‑35/24 P by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission, disputes the merits of the arguments of the second to fourth appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_913", "court_paragraph": 299 }, { "text": "2.\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "300", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "The second to fourth appellants criticise the General Court, in essence, for erring in law, in paragraphs 137 and 138 of the second judgment under appeal, in paragraphs 143 to 145 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraphs 124 to 131 of the fourth judgment under appeal, in its analysis of whether the Council had infringed the principle of equal treatment by adopting restrictive measures against leading businesspersons within the meaning of the (g) criterion.", "paragraph_id": "para_916", "court_paragraph": 300 }, { "text": "301", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "In that regard, it must be observed that the principle of equal treatment, as also laid down in Article 20 of the Charter, is a general principle of EU law, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such difference in treatment is objectively justified (judgment of 30 November 2023, MG v EIB, C‑173/22 P , EU:C:2023:932 , paragraph  45 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_918", "court_paragraph": 301 }, { "text": "302", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "It should also be emphasised that, as is apparent from paragraph 271 of the present judgment, the Council has broad discretion when it determines the purpose of restrictive measures, the listing criteria and the categories of persons covered by those criteria, and that the legality of a measure adop …", "paragraph_id": "para_920", "court_paragraph": 302 }, { "text": "303", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "In the cases at hand, as the General Court correctly held in paragraph 137 of the second judgment under appeal, in paragraph 144 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraph 127 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the (g) criterion covers indistinguishably leading businesspersons involved in …", "paragraph_id": "para_922", "court_paragraph": 303 }, { "text": "304", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "Admittedly, the condition that the leading businesspersons covered by the (g) criterion must be involved in those economic sectors means that, in a large majority of cases, those businesspersons hold Russian nationality. However, that is the logical outcome of the fact that, as is apparent from para …", "paragraph_id": "para_924", "court_paragraph": 304 }, { "text": "305", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "It is also clear from paragraphs 285 to 294 of the present judgment that the General Court did not err in law in finding, in paragraphs 106 to 109 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraphs 89 to 92 of the fourth judgment under appeal, that the (g) criterion was not unlawful because it was …", "paragraph_id": "para_926", "court_paragraph": 305 }, { "text": "306", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "Accordingly, it is apparent from the preceding three paragraphs that, as the General Court correctly held in paragraph 137 of the second judgment under appeal, in paragraph 144 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraph 127 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the fact that it is predominan …", "paragraph_id": "para_928", "court_paragraph": 306 }, { "text": "307", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "Moreover, as the General Court stated in paragraph 139 of the second judgment under appeal and in paragraph 128 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the Council’s broad discretion to identify the leading businesspersons liable to be subject to restrictive measures under the (g) criterion cannot be interpreted as a breach of the principle of equal treatment (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 June 2020, VTB Bank v Council, C‑729/18 P , EU:C:2020:499 , paragraph  70 ).", "paragraph_id": "para_930", "court_paragraph": 307 }, { "text": "308", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "Last, as the General Court correctly held, in essence, in paragraph 138 of the second judgment under appeal, in paragraph 145 of the third judgment under appeal and in paragraph 129 of the fourth judgment under appeal, in view of that broad discretion and of the fact that the (g) criterion is lawful …", "paragraph_id": "para_932", "court_paragraph": 308 }, { "text": "309", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the first part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the fifth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and Case C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_934", "court_paragraph": 309 }, { "text": "E.   Grounds of appeal alleging errors of law and distortions of facts and evidence by the General Court as regards whether the constituent elements of the (g) criterion were satisfied in respect of the five appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "310", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "This section examines the five appellants’ grounds of appeal alleging errors of law and distortions of facts and evidence vitiating the General Court’s analysis aimed at determining, in each of the five judgments under appeal, whether the Council made errors of assessment in finding that, in the lig …", "paragraph_id": "para_937", "court_paragraph": 310 }, { "text": "311", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "Those grounds of appeal are, specifically, the first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the third complaint in the first part and the first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal and the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the first ground of appeal a …", "paragraph_id": "para_939", "court_paragraph": 311 }, { "text": "312", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "The first group of those grounds of appeal and arguments alleges, in essence, errors of law and distortions by the General Court in its analysis of whether the sectors in which the second to fifth appellants operate or operated constituted a ‘substantial source of revenue’ for the Government of the …", "paragraph_id": "para_941", "court_paragraph": 312 }, { "text": "313", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "It is necessary to clarify that, since, as is apparent from paragraph 162 of the present judgment, a number of arguments put forward by the first appellant in support of his first ground of appeal relate both to the legal characterisation of the facts and to interpretation of the concept of ‘influen …", "paragraph_id": "para_943", "court_paragraph": 313 }, { "text": "1.\n  \n Alleged errors of law and distortions by the General Court in its analysis of whether the economic sectors in which the second to fifth appellants operate or operated constitute a substantial source of revenue for the Government of the Russian Federation", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "314", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "By the first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal and the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the first ground of appeal and the fourth to sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the first to third parts of the first ground of appeal and the first …", "paragraph_id": "para_946", "court_paragraph": 314 }, { "text": "315", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "Since they are connected, the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and Case C‑35/24 P, by which the second to fourth appellants allege that the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review, will be examined together in the first part of the present subsection. The second part of the present subsection will examine the other arguments referred to in the preceding paragraph.", "paragraph_id": "para_948", "court_paragraph": 315 }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n The second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P and Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "(1)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "316", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "By his second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant alleges that the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessment and reasoning for those adopted by the Council in the reasons given in the second maintaining acts at issue. In those …", "paragraph_id": "para_952", "court_paragraph": 316 }, { "text": "317", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "By the first part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the third appellant alleges that, in paragraphs 69 to 74, 81 to 83 and 98 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments and reasoning for those …", "paragraph_id": "para_954", "court_paragraph": 317 }, { "text": "318", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "By the first part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P, the fourth appellant alleges that, in paragraphs 56 to 61 and 69 to 74 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments and reasoning for those of …", "paragraph_id": "para_956", "court_paragraph": 318 }, { "text": "319", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "The Council submits that the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P is inadmissible, because the second appellant’s arguments are unclear and because it contains a new complaint that was not relied on before the General Court, that is to say, the complaint alleging that the Council did not refer to the economic sectors in the reasons for the second maintaining acts at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_958", "court_paragraph": 319 }, { "text": "320", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "The Council also submits that the majority of the claims made in support of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 are inadmissible inasmuch as they invite the Court to rule on points of fact and on the assessment of the evidence produced before the General Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_960", "court_paragraph": 320 }, { "text": "321", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "As to the remainder, the Council, supported in Case C‑35/24 P by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission, disputes the merits of the arguments of the second to fourth appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_962", "court_paragraph": 321 }, { "text": "(2)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "(i)   Admissibility of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and of the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "322", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "As regards, in the first place, the admissibility of the second ground of appeal relied on by the second appellant in support of his appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, it must be noted that, in the light of the Court’s case-law recalled in paragraph 157 of the present judgment and contrary to the Council’s …", "paragraph_id": "para_966", "court_paragraph": 322 }, { "text": "323", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "Although it is true that, under that ground of appeal, the second appellant notes that the Council did not, in those reasons, identify the economic sector in which he was supposedly involved, it should be emphasised that the second appellant does not draw any legal conclusion from that mere observation, which therefore cannot in any way affect the admissibility of his second ground of appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_968", "court_paragraph": 323 }, { "text": "324", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "In the second place, in so far as the Council disputes the admissibility of the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P, it must be noted that the fourth appellant is not seeking, by that part, to challenge the General Court’s assessment of the facts and evidence. That appellant i …", "paragraph_id": "para_970", "court_paragraph": 324 }, { "text": "325", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "It follows that the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P are admissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_972", "court_paragraph": 325 }, { "text": "(ii)   Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "326", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "In essence, the second to fourth appellants allege that the General Court, in the second to fourth judgments under appeal, disregarded the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own reasons for those adopted by the Council in the respective statements of reasons in the acts of which they a …", "paragraph_id": "para_975", "court_paragraph": 326 }, { "text": "327", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter requires, inter alia, that the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that the decision, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a suffici …", "paragraph_id": "para_977", "court_paragraph": 327 }, { "text": "328", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "As regards Cases C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P and C‑35/24 P, it should be noted that the statements of reasons in those acts of which annulment is sought by the second to fourth appellants respectively, all indicate that those appellants are leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors that consti …", "paragraph_id": "para_979", "court_paragraph": 328 }, { "text": "329", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "That is precisely what the General Court set out to do in paragraphs 96 to 109 of the second judgment under appeal, paragraphs 79 to 98 of the third judgment under appeal and paragraphs 67 to 82 of the fourth judgment under appeal. In those circumstances, the General Court cannot be criticised for substituting its own reasoning for that adopted by the Council and for thereby disregarding the scope of its judicial review.", "paragraph_id": "para_981", "court_paragraph": 329 }, { "text": "330", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "In so far as the second to fourth appellants criticise the General Court for not confining itself to ascertaining whether the Council had made an error of assessment by inferring from the information relating to the tax burden of the companies in which they pursued their activities or to the economi …", "paragraph_id": "para_983", "court_paragraph": 330 }, { "text": "331", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "Second and in any event, the Council was not required, as is apparent from the Court’s case-law referred to in paragraph 327 of the present judgment, to produce before the Courts of the European Union all the information and evidence underlying the reasons alleged in the act of which annulment is so …", "paragraph_id": "para_985", "court_paragraph": 331 }, { "text": "332", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the second ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the first part of the first ground of appeal in Cases C‑711/23 P and C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_987", "court_paragraph": 332 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n The first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second part of the first ground of appeal and the fourth to sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the second and third parts of the first ground of appeal, the first part and the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the fifth and sixth grounds of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "(1)   The first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "(i)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "333", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "By the first complaint in the second part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant claims that the General Court failed correctly to apply the concept of ‘substantial source of revenue’ in relation to him. Accordingly, whereas in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the second judgm …", "paragraph_id": "para_992", "court_paragraph": 333 }, { "text": "334", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "The Council submits that, by that complaint, the second appellant is seeking not to raise a point of law but to challenge the General Court’s assessment of the evidence, and it must therefore be declared inadmissible. It also disputes the merits of that appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_994", "court_paragraph": 334 }, { "text": "(ii)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "335", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "As regards the admissibility of the first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, it should be found that, contrary to the Council’s assertion, the second appellant is not seeking to challenge the General Court’s assessment of the evidence, but is criticising t …", "paragraph_id": "para_997", "court_paragraph": 335 }, { "text": "336", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "On the substance, it must be acknowledged, as the second appellant submits and as the General Court itself admits in paragraph 103 of the second judgment under appeal, that, in order to find, in that paragraph and in paragraphs 107 and 108 of that judgment, that the Russian IT and communications sec …", "paragraph_id": "para_999", "court_paragraph": 336 }, { "text": "337", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "However, it should be noted that information relating to one undertaking may, in certain circumstances, give an indication that is relevant to assessing whether the source of revenue represented, for the State in question, by the economic sector of which that undertaking forms part is substantial, in particular where that undertaking is one of the most important in that sector and where the revenue provided to that State by the undertaking concerned is in itself substantial.", "paragraph_id": "para_1001", "court_paragraph": 337 }, { "text": "338", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, in paragraphs 98 to 102 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court found that Yandex was the company offering the principal online search engine in Russia, equivalent in that country to Google, was listed on the Nasdaq, had more than 100 million users per month and t …", "paragraph_id": "para_1003", "court_paragraph": 338 }, { "text": "339", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "The General Court thereby found that, as a prominent undertaking in the Russian IT and communications sector and as a driver of the expansion of that sector, Yandex operated in an economic sector characterised by exponential growth, offered a diverse range of services and products and had a very lar …", "paragraph_id": "para_1005", "court_paragraph": 339 }, { "text": "340", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "In adopting that reasoning, the General Court therefore relied on a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence capable of showing, on the basis in particular of information about the principal company operating in that sector, that the Council had been entitled to find that the sector in question constituted a substantial source of revenue for the Government of the Russian Federation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1007", "court_paragraph": 340 }, { "text": "341", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "In those circumstances and without it being necessary to examine the alleged distortion of the purely corroborating evidence referred to in paragraph 103 of the second judgment under appeal, the second appellant cannot properly argue that the General Court relied on that evidence alone and that it thereby reversed the burden of proof.", "paragraph_id": "para_1009", "court_paragraph": 341 }, { "text": "342", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the first complaint in the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1011", "court_paragraph": 342 }, { "text": "(2)   The second part of the first ground of appeal and the fourth to sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "(i)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "343", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "By the second part of the first ground of appeal in support of his appeal in Case C‑711/23 P, the third appellant claims that, in particular in paragraphs 86 and 88 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court distorted the evidence and substituted its own assessment for that of the Council …", "paragraph_id": "para_1015", "court_paragraph": 343 }, { "text": "344", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "In support of the fourth part of his fourth ground of appeal, the third appellant submits that the General Court distorted the facts and evidence put before it, with the effect that it reversed the burden of proof borne in principle by the Council. Whereas, in paragraph 81 of the third judgment unde …", "paragraph_id": "para_1017", "court_paragraph": 344 }, { "text": "345", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "In any event, the Council has not produced any evidence from which it can be established that the source of revenue that the Government of the Russian Federation derives from the metallurgy sector was indeed substantial in comparison with that government’s budget revenue as a whole. Accordingly, the …", "paragraph_id": "para_1019", "court_paragraph": 345 }, { "text": "346", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "By the fifth part of his fourth ground of appeal, the third appellant takes issue with the General Court for erring in law, in paragraph 87 of the third judgment under appeal, by infringing the rules relating to the burden of proof and the rights of the defence inasmuch as, by using in that paragraph the expression ‘there is no doubt’, it presumed that the Russian metallurgy sector provided a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1021", "court_paragraph": 346 }, { "text": "347", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "Under the sixth part of his fourth ground of appeal, the third appellant criticises the General Court for finding, in paragraph 98 of the third judgment under appeal, that the mandatory tax payments by the economic sector concerned could justify the adoption of restrictive measures against a natural …", "paragraph_id": "para_1023", "court_paragraph": 347 }, { "text": "348", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "The Council disputes the merits of the third appellant’s arguments on the substance while stating that, in so far as that appellant is disputing the sufficiency of the evidence and thus seeking its reassessment, those arguments are inadmissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_1025", "court_paragraph": 348 }, { "text": "(ii)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "349", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "As a preliminary point, it should be noted that all the arguments put forward by the third appellant in support of the second part of his first ground of appeal and of the fourth to sixth parts of his fourth ground of appeal are admissible. By those arguments, the third appellant disputes certain fa …", "paragraph_id": "para_1028", "court_paragraph": 349 }, { "text": "350", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "As regards, first of all, the complaints by which, under the second part of his first ground of appeal and the fourth and fifth parts of his fourth ground of appeal, the third appellant alleges that, in paragraphs 86 to 89 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court distorted the evidence or reasoned on the basis of a presumption and thus reversed the burden of proof, those complaints should be rejected inasmuch as the appellant misreads those paragraphs.", "paragraph_id": "para_1030", "court_paragraph": 350 }, { "text": "351", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "The General Court first of all analysed two items of evidence, in paragraph 86 of the third judgment under appeal, from which, according to its findings, it could ‘easily’ be deduced that the metallurgy sector constituted a substantial source of revenue for the Government of the Russian Federation. …", "paragraph_id": "para_1032", "court_paragraph": 351 }, { "text": "352", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "Indeed, far from disregarding the fact that those items of evidence showed only forecasts for that period, in paragraph 93 of the third judgment under appeal the General Court found that they had significant probative value because they were ‘indicative of the importance of the income which that sec …", "paragraph_id": "para_1034", "court_paragraph": 352 }, { "text": "353", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "The General Court accordingly found, in paragraph 87 of the third judgment under appeal, that, despite the Council having not provided figures for the revenue provided by the metallurgy sector to the Government of the Russian Federation, ‘there [was] no doubt’ that that sector constituted a substant …", "paragraph_id": "para_1036", "court_paragraph": 353 }, { "text": "354", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "It was only at a second stage, in paragraphs 88 and 89 of the third judgment under appeal, that the General Court examined the position and importance of MMK in the Russian metallurgy sector in order to confirm that finding. That purely corroborative examination of the evidence relating to the reven …", "paragraph_id": "para_1038", "court_paragraph": 354 }, { "text": "355", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "Next, as regards the third appellant’s complaint that the General Court’s inference in paragraph 90 of the third judgment under appeal is substantively inaccurate and unsupported because the Council failed to produce any evidence establishing that the revenue derived by the Government of the Russian …", "paragraph_id": "para_1040", "court_paragraph": 355 }, { "text": "356", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "Last, it is necessary to reject the sixth part of the fourth ground of appeal, by which the third appellant criticises the General Court for holding, in paragraph 98 of the third judgment under appeal, that the mandatory tax payments by the economic sector concerned could be taken into account in de …", "paragraph_id": "para_1042", "court_paragraph": 356 }, { "text": "357", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the second part of the first ground of appeal and the fourth to sixth parts of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑711/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1044", "court_paragraph": 357 }, { "text": "(3)   The second and third parts of the first ground of appeal and the first part and the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "(i)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "358", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "By the second part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P, the fourth appellant submits that, in particular in paragraph 72 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the General Court distorted the evidence provided by the Council and substituted its own assessment for that of the Council by inf …", "paragraph_id": "para_1048", "court_paragraph": 358 }, { "text": "359", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "By the third part of his first ground of appeal, the fourth appellant takes issue with the General Court for infringing the rules relating to the burden of proof, in paragraph 75 of the fourth judgment under appeal, inasmuch as, by using in that paragraph the expression ‘there is no doubt’, it presumed that the fertiliser sector provided a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1050", "court_paragraph": 359 }, { "text": "360", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "Under the first part of his fourth ground of appeal, the fourth appellant claims that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 72 to 75 of the fourth judgment under appeal, by reasoning on the basis of a presumption and by in that way reversing the burden of proof, inasmuch as it inferred from …", "paragraph_id": "para_1052", "court_paragraph": 360 }, { "text": "361", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "By the second complaint in the second part of his fourth ground of appeal, the fourth appellant criticises the General Court for failing to examine two arguments that he had put forward at first instance, that is to say, the argument that the contribution made by the fertiliser sector to the revenue …", "paragraph_id": "para_1054", "court_paragraph": 361 }, { "text": "362", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "As regards the fourth appellant’s first ground of appeal, the Council submits that the majority of claims made in support of the first ground of appeal are inadmissible as they concern points of fact and the assessment of the evidence produced before the General Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_1056", "court_paragraph": 362 }, { "text": "363", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "As regards the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal, the Council submits that the question as to whether the revenue from the Russian fertiliser sector can be considered to be ‘substantial’ is a question of the factual assessment of the evidence, which cannot be subject to reassessment by the Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_1058", "court_paragraph": 363 }, { "text": "364", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "On the substance, the Council, supported in Case C‑35/24 P by the Republic of Latvia and the Commission, disputes the merits of the arguments of the fourth appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_1060", "court_paragraph": 364 }, { "text": "(ii)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "365", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "As a preliminary point, it must be found that the second and third parts of the first ground of appeal and the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal are admissible. The fourth appellant claims, by the second part of his first ground of appeal, that the General Court dist …", "paragraph_id": "para_1063", "court_paragraph": 365 }, { "text": "366", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "On the substance, as regards, in the first place, the complaints by which, under the second and third parts of his first ground of appeal and under the first part of his fourth ground of appeal, the fourth appellant alleges that, in paragraphs 72 to 75 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the Genera …", "paragraph_id": "para_1065", "court_paragraph": 366 }, { "text": "367", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "First, the fact that, in paragraph 72 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the General Court took into account evidence relating to the strategic importance of Uralchem and Uralkali in order to determine whether the fertiliser sector provided a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the …", "paragraph_id": "para_1067", "court_paragraph": 367 }, { "text": "368", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "Furthermore, it is irrelevant that the evidence concerned may also be used to establish, for example, that the businessperson concerned is a leading businessperson, since, in the context of its judicial review, the scope of which has been recalled in paragraph 327 of the present judgment, the Genera …", "paragraph_id": "para_1069", "court_paragraph": 368 }, { "text": "369", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "Second, it cannot be found that the General Court, in particular in paragraph 74 of the fourth judgment under appeal, reasoned on the basis of a presumption and thereby reversed the burden of proof, or that it extended the scope of the (g) criterion. The General Court found, on the basis of the evid …", "paragraph_id": "para_1071", "court_paragraph": 369 }, { "text": "370", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "The General Court was therefore able, correctly, to conclude from the foregoing, in paragraph 75 of the fourth judgment under appeal, that, even though the Council had not supplied figures for the revenue provided by the fertiliser sector to the Government of the Russian Federation, ‘there [was] no doubt’ that the sector constituted a substantial source of revenue for that government.", "paragraph_id": "para_1073", "court_paragraph": 370 }, { "text": "371", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "In the second place, as regards the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal, by which the fourth appellant takes issue with the General Court for failing to rule on a number of his arguments, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court refer …", "paragraph_id": "para_1075", "court_paragraph": 371 }, { "text": "372", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "Accordingly, it is necessary to find, first, that, in the light of the General Court’s factual findings and assessments in paragraphs 72 to 74 of the fourth judgment under appeal and summarised in paragraph 369 of the present judgment, the fourth appellant was able to understand that the General Cou …", "paragraph_id": "para_1077", "court_paragraph": 372 }, { "text": "373", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "Second, the fourth appellant was also able to infer from those paragraphs of the fourth judgment under appeal that, given the leading position occupied by Russia in the fertiliser sector globally and the importance of that sector in the Russian and global agri-food sectors, the fact that the legisla …", "paragraph_id": "para_1079", "court_paragraph": 373 }, { "text": "374", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the second and third parts of the first ground of appeal and the first part and the second complaint in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1081", "court_paragraph": 374 }, { "text": "(4)   The fifth and sixth grounds of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "(i)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "375", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "By the fifth ground of appeal in support of his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant criticises the General Court for distorting item of evidence 2, referred to in paragraph 74 of the fifth judgment under appeal. In that paragraph, the General Court stated that the ranking of the largest R …", "paragraph_id": "para_1085", "court_paragraph": 375 }, { "text": "376", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "By his sixth ground of appeal, the fifth appellant submits that the General Court’s statement of reasons in paragraph 106 of the fifth judgment under appeal was insufficient, contradictory and made in the absence of any evidence, inasmuch as that court incorrectly inferred from the magnitude of Alfa …", "paragraph_id": "para_1087", "court_paragraph": 376 }, { "text": "377", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "The Council disputes the merits of the fifth appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_1089", "court_paragraph": 377 }, { "text": "(ii)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "378", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "As regards the fifth ground of appeal, it must be borne in mind that, where an appellant alleges that the General Court distorted facts or evidence, that person must, under Article 256 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 16 …", "paragraph_id": "para_1092", "court_paragraph": 378 }, { "text": "379", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, it must be noted that item of evidence 2, which the General Court examined in paragraph 74 of the fifth judgment under appeal, is an article from a website, which relates to the largest taxpayers in Russia in 2020 and cites as its reference an order of the Russian Federal Tax Of …", "paragraph_id": "para_1094", "court_paragraph": 379 }, { "text": "380", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "Accordingly, when it stated, in paragraph 74 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that the article concerned ‘refers to an order of the Russian Federal Tax Office, which establishes the ranking of the largest taxpayers according to criteria specified in the article summarising the order in question’, …", "paragraph_id": "para_1096", "court_paragraph": 380 }, { "text": "381", "paragraph_id": "para_1097" }, { "text": "As regards paragraph 106 of the fifth judgment under appeal, against which the fifth appellant’s fifth and sixth grounds of appeal are both directed, it should be noted that, in that paragraph, the General Court examined whether the source of revenue provided to the Russian Federation by the banking …", "paragraph_id": "para_1098", "court_paragraph": 381 }, { "text": "382", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "By analogy with what was stated in paragraphs 337, 354 and 367 of the present judgment, it is possible to find, in certain circumstances, that an economic sector in a State constitutes a substantial source of revenue for its government, provided that there is a sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent body of evidence demonstrating that one of the most important companies in that sector, on its own, provides substantial revenue to that government.", "paragraph_id": "para_1100", "court_paragraph": 382 }, { "text": "383", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the fifth and sixth grounds of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1102", "court_paragraph": 383 }, { "text": "2.\n  \n Alleged errors of law and distortions by the General Court as regards the second appellant’s ‘influence’ and the first and fifth appellants’ ‘involvement’, within the meaning of the (g) criterion", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "384", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "By the first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the third complaint in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P and the eighth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the first, second and fifth appellants claim that the General Court, if it did not distort f …", "paragraph_id": "para_1105", "court_paragraph": 384 }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n The first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "(1)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "385", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "By the first part of his second ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the first appellant claims that, in paragraph 52 of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Council had been entitled to find that he was ‘involved’ in certain Russian economic sectors on …", "paragraph_id": "para_1109", "court_paragraph": 385 }, { "text": "386", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "The Council claims that the Court should reject that part as being inadmissible, because the first appellant is in reality seeking a reassessment of the facts without demonstrating the existence of any distortion. On the substance, the Council disputes the merits of that appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_1111", "court_paragraph": 386 }, { "text": "(2)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "387", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "On the issue of admissibility, it must be noted, having regard to the Court’s case-law referred to in paragraph 161 of the present judgment, that in paragraph 52 of the fifth judgment under appeal, contrary to the first appellant’s assertions, the General Court did not give a legal characterisation …", "paragraph_id": "para_1114", "court_paragraph": 387 }, { "text": "388", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "As to the remainder, in respect of whether the first appellant was still involved in an economic sector on the date on which the decision and the regulation at issue were adopted, it must be found that that question was determined by the General Court in paragraph 62 of the first judgment under appe …", "paragraph_id": "para_1116", "court_paragraph": 388 }, { "text": "389", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "It follows that the first part of the second ground of appeal relied on in support of the appeal in Case C‑696/23 P must be rejected as inadmissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_1118", "court_paragraph": 389 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n The third complaint in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "(1)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "390", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "By the third complaint in the first part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant claims that, in paragraph 126 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court failed to state to the requisite legal standard the reasons why, in respect of the maintaining acts at …", "paragraph_id": "para_1122", "court_paragraph": 390 }, { "text": "391", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "The Council claims that the Court should reject that complaint as being inadmissible, because the second appellant is in reality seeking a reassessment of the facts without demonstrating the existence of any distortion. On the substance, the Council disputes the merits of that appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_1124", "court_paragraph": 391 }, { "text": "(2)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1125" }, { "text": "392", "paragraph_id": "para_1126" }, { "text": "On the issue of admissibility, to the extent that, by the third complaint in the first part of his first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P, the second appellant claims that the General Court failed to state sufficient reasons in paragraph 126 of the second judgment under appeal, it must be recalle …", "paragraph_id": "para_1127", "court_paragraph": 392 }, { "text": "393", "paragraph_id": "para_1128" }, { "text": "On the substance, as regards the alleged insufficiency of that statement of reasons, it should be noted that, in paragraph 126 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court referred to the reasons set out in paragraphs 119 to 124 of that judgment. Paragraphs 122 and 124 of that judgment, in …", "paragraph_id": "para_1129", "court_paragraph": 393 }, { "text": "394", "paragraph_id": "para_1130" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, the second appellant’s argument that paragraph 126 of the second judgment under appeal is vitiated by a substantive factual inaccuracy as a result of the allegedly insufficient statement of reasons in that paragraph must be rejected. In any event, contrary to the requirements …", "paragraph_id": "para_1131", "court_paragraph": 394 }, { "text": "395", "paragraph_id": "para_1132" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the third complaint in the first part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑704/23 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1133", "court_paragraph": 395 }, { "text": "(c)\n  \n Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1134" }, { "text": "(1)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1135" }, { "text": "396", "paragraph_id": "para_1136" }, { "text": "By the eighth ground of appeal relied on in support of his appeal in Case C‑111/24 P, the fifth appellant claims that, although the General Court had already accepted that a person could not be penalised on the basis of the (g) criterion for an economic activity which that person had brought to an e …", "paragraph_id": "para_1137", "court_paragraph": 396 }, { "text": "397", "paragraph_id": "para_1138" }, { "text": "The fifth appellant submits that the General Court thereby infringed the principle of a fair hearing by subjecting him to excessive and unjustified evidential requirements. The composition of the new shareholder structure is an external matter, the production of an official document would be superfl …", "paragraph_id": "para_1139", "court_paragraph": 397 }, { "text": "398", "paragraph_id": "para_1140" }, { "text": "The fifth appellant also claims that the General Court disregarded the extent of its judicial review, because the Council confined itself to questioning the reliability of the article produced by that appellant and of the news agency that published it, and the question of the need to provide additio …", "paragraph_id": "para_1141", "court_paragraph": 398 }, { "text": "399", "paragraph_id": "para_1142" }, { "text": "The Council submits that the eighth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P must be found to be inadmissible because the fifth appellant is in reality, by that ground of appeal, seeking a reassessment of an item of evidence by the Court of Justice. On the substance, the Council disputes the merits of the fifth appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_1143", "court_paragraph": 399 }, { "text": "(2)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1144" }, { "text": "(i)   Admissibility", "paragraph_id": "para_1145" }, { "text": "400", "paragraph_id": "para_1146" }, { "text": "It is necessary at the outset to recall that, as stated in paragraphs 226 and 324 of the present judgment, first, review by the Court of Justice of the findings of fact made by the General Court extends, inter alia, to ascertaining whether the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of …", "paragraph_id": "para_1147", "court_paragraph": 400 }, { "text": "401", "paragraph_id": "para_1148" }, { "text": "Next, an alleged infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of the corollaries of that right, the principle of equality of arms and the principle of audi alteram partem , which the General Court must uphold in procedures brought before it, is a question of law that falls within the jurisdiction …", "paragraph_id": "para_1149", "court_paragraph": 401 }, { "text": "402", "paragraph_id": "para_1150" }, { "text": "Last, provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the General Court alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence pu …", "paragraph_id": "para_1151", "court_paragraph": 402 }, { "text": "403", "paragraph_id": "para_1152" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, the fifth appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court infringed the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence, exceeded the scope of its judicial authority and infringed the right to a fair hearing and the principles of equality of arms and of aud …", "paragraph_id": "para_1153", "court_paragraph": 403 }, { "text": "404", "paragraph_id": "para_1154" }, { "text": "By contrast, in so far as the fifth appellant criticises the General Court for finding, in paragraph 130 of the fifth judgment under appeal, that the evidence examined in that paragraph was of insufficient evidential value, that argument must be found to be inadmissible, pursuant to the Court’s case-law referred to in paragraph 402 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_1155", "court_paragraph": 404 }, { "text": "405", "paragraph_id": "para_1156" }, { "text": "It follows that the eighth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P is admissible only to the extent specified in paragraph 403 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_1157", "court_paragraph": 405 }, { "text": "(ii)   Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_1158" }, { "text": "406", "paragraph_id": "para_1159" }, { "text": "By his eighth ground of appeal, the fifth appellant submits essentially that, in paragraph 130 of the fifth judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed his right to a fair hearing, the principle of equality of arms and the principle of audi alteram partem , and disregarded the scope of its judicial review when examining evidence produced by that appellant at first instance.", "paragraph_id": "para_1160", "court_paragraph": 406 }, { "text": "407", "paragraph_id": "para_1161" }, { "text": "In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the right to a fair hearing is a fundamental principle of EU law, now enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter. In order to satisfy the requirements flowing from that right, the EU Courts must ensure that the principle of audi alteram partem is respected …", "paragraph_id": "para_1162", "court_paragraph": 407 }, { "text": "408", "paragraph_id": "para_1163" }, { "text": "In the case at hand, it is not apparent from the case file before the General Court that, in the light of the requirements flowing from the right to a fair hearing, the fifth appellant was denied an opportunity to discuss and to substantiate the evidence examined by the General Court in paragraph 13 …", "paragraph_id": "para_1164", "court_paragraph": 408 }, { "text": "409", "paragraph_id": "para_1165" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, the eighth ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P must be rejected as, in part, inadmissible and, in part, unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_1166", "court_paragraph": 409 }, { "text": "F.   The second part of the first ground of appeal and the fifth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P, the third head of claim in Case C‑704/23 P, the fifth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P and the first ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1167" }, { "text": "1.\n  \n The second part of the first ground of appeal and the fifth ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1168" }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n The second part of the first ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_1169" }, { "text": "(1)   Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1170" }, { "text": "410", "paragraph_id": "para_1171" }, { "text": "By the second part of the second ground of appeal, which it is appropriate to examine in this section in accordance with the considerations set out in paragraph 91 of the present judgment, the first appellant claims that the General Court was wrong to hold, both in paragraph 66 and in paragraph 89 o …", "paragraph_id": "para_1172", "court_paragraph": 410 }, { "text": "411", "paragraph_id": "para_1173" }, { "text": "The Council disputes the merits of the first appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_1174", "court_paragraph": 411 }, { "text": "(2)   Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1175" }, { "text": "412", "paragraph_id": "para_1176" }, { "text": "As is apparent, in essence, from the considerations set out in paragraphs 181, 276 and 291 of the present judgment, the category of persons at which the (g) criterion is aimed, that is to say, ‘leading businesspersons’, does indeed have an objective link with the Russian Federation in the light of t …", "paragraph_id": "para_1177", "court_paragraph": 412 }, { "text": "413", "paragraph_id": "para_1178" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, the General Court did not err in law in holding that, as is apparent from paragraph 66 of the first judgment under appeal and from paragraph 125 of the present judgment, the (g) criterion had to be interpreted as meaning that the substantial source of revenue provided to the Government of the Russian Federation must come not from the leading businesspersons but from the economic sectors in which they are involved.", "paragraph_id": "para_1179", "court_paragraph": 413 }, { "text": "414", "paragraph_id": "para_1180" }, { "text": "Accordingly, the second part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑696/23 P must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_1181", "court_paragraph": 414 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n The fifth ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_1182" }, { "text": "415", "paragraph_id": "para_1183" }, { "text": "By his fifth ground of appeal, the first appellant declares that he repeats all the submissions that he made at first instance with respect to the second criterion on which the restrictive measures taken against him were based, that is to say, the criterion established in, inter alia, Article 2(1)(f) of Decision 2014/145, in the event that the Court upholds the appeal, sets aside the first judgment under appeal and decides to rule itself on the action for annulment.", "paragraph_id": "para_1184", "court_paragraph": 415 }, { "text": "416", "paragraph_id": "para_1185" }, { "text": "The Commission submits that that ground of appeal must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_1186", "court_paragraph": 416 }, { "text": "417", "paragraph_id": "para_1187" }, { "text": "In that regard, it must be noted that the fifth ground of appeal put forward by the first appellant in support of his appeal is submitted in the event that the Court upholds the appeal and sets aside the first judgment under appeal on the basis of one or more of the four other grounds of appeal on which that appellant relies. Since none of those other four grounds of appeal can succeed, it is not necessary to rule on the fifth ground of appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_1188", "court_paragraph": 417 }, { "text": "2.\n  \n The third head of claim in Case C‑704/23 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1189" }, { "text": "418", "paragraph_id": "para_1190" }, { "text": "By his third head of claim, the second appellant requests the Court to order compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him as a result of the adoption of the acts at issue, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU.", "paragraph_id": "para_1191", "court_paragraph": 418 }, { "text": "419", "paragraph_id": "para_1192" }, { "text": "In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 169(1) and Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure, an appeal is to seek to have set aside, in whole or in part, the decision of the General Court as set out in the operative part of that decision and, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, to seek the same form of order as that sought at first instance, and is not to seek a different form of order.", "paragraph_id": "para_1193", "court_paragraph": 419 }, { "text": "420", "paragraph_id": "para_1194" }, { "text": "Given that the third head of claim does not seek to have set aside, in whole or in part, the decision of the General Court as set out in the operative part of the second judgment under appeal, that head of claim must be understood to refer to the scenario in which the appeal is declared well founded …", "paragraph_id": "para_1195", "court_paragraph": 420 }, { "text": "3.\n  \n The fifth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1196" }, { "text": "421", "paragraph_id": "para_1197" }, { "text": "By the fifth part of his first ground of appeal, the fourth appellant claims that, by using the present tense in paragraphs 33, 59, 61 and 76 of the fourth judgment under appeal, the General Court distorted the facts in finding that he was still an owner and the chief executive officer of Uralchem even though, on the day on which that judgment was delivered, he no longer held the position of chief executive officer of that company.", "paragraph_id": "para_1198", "court_paragraph": 421 }, { "text": "422", "paragraph_id": "para_1199" }, { "text": "The Council disputes the merits of the fourth appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_1200", "court_paragraph": 422 }, { "text": "423", "paragraph_id": "para_1201" }, { "text": "In that regard, it is sufficient to note that the fourth appellant has not specified in what respect that distortion, assuming it to be established, affected the operative part of the fourth judgment under appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_1202", "court_paragraph": 423 }, { "text": "424", "paragraph_id": "para_1203" }, { "text": "It is therefore necessary to reject the fifth part of the first ground of appeal in Case C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1204", "court_paragraph": 424 }, { "text": "4.\n  \n The first ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_1205" }, { "text": "(a)\n  \n Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1206" }, { "text": "425", "paragraph_id": "para_1207" }, { "text": "In support of his first ground of appeal, the fifth appellant recalls that the restrictive measures to which he is subject are based on the (g) criterion and the (d) criterion. He also notes that his action before the General Court addressed each of those two criteria.", "paragraph_id": "para_1208", "court_paragraph": 425 }, { "text": "426", "paragraph_id": "para_1209" }, { "text": "Against that background, the fifth appellant takes issue with the General Court for declining to examine his arguments relating to the (d) criterion, in paragraphs 134 and 135 of the fifth judgment under appeal, because it found that the restrictive measures taken on the basis of the (g) criterion w …", "paragraph_id": "para_1210", "court_paragraph": 426 }, { "text": "427", "paragraph_id": "para_1211" }, { "text": "Furthermore, since, unlike the (g) criterion, the (d) criterion is aimed at persons supporting or benefitting from Russian decision-makers, the right to reputation, which forms part of the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter, means that, in order to restore his re …", "paragraph_id": "para_1212", "court_paragraph": 427 }, { "text": "428", "paragraph_id": "para_1213" }, { "text": "The foregoing should apply with all the more reason since restrictive measures are not punitive but are intended to modify certain behaviour supporting situations contrary to the common foreign and security policy of the European Union. Given that a person who is falsely accused cannot amend behavio …", "paragraph_id": "para_1214", "court_paragraph": 428 }, { "text": "429", "paragraph_id": "para_1215" }, { "text": "The Council disputes the merits of the fifth appellant’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_1216", "court_paragraph": 429 }, { "text": "(b)\n  \n Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1217" }, { "text": "430", "paragraph_id": "para_1218" }, { "text": "The Court has already held, in respect of the review of the lawfulness of an EU decision adopting restrictive measures, that, having regard to their preventive nature, if the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned is sufficiently detailed and spec …", "paragraph_id": "para_1219", "court_paragraph": 430 }, { "text": "431", "paragraph_id": "para_1220" }, { "text": "It is common ground that, in paragraphs 134 and 135 of the fifth judgment under appeal, the General Court applied that case-law in order to hold that it was not necessary for it to examine whether the restrictive measures adopted against the fifth appellant under the (d) criterion were well founded, because it had reached the conclusion that those measures were well founded in the light of the (g) criterion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1221", "court_paragraph": 431 }, { "text": "432", "paragraph_id": "para_1222" }, { "text": "Contrary to the fifth appellant’s assertions, that case-law does not disregard the requirements flowing from the right to an effective judicial remedy or from the right to reputation, as a component of the right to respect for private and family life, as those fundamental rights are enshrined in Articles 47 and 7 respectively of the Charter.", "paragraph_id": "para_1223", "court_paragraph": 432 }, { "text": "433", "paragraph_id": "para_1224" }, { "text": "First, the Court has already held that the scope of the judicial review of EU acts imposing restrictive measures, as that scope is apparent from the same case-law, ensures a fair balance between, on the one hand, the maintenance of international peace and security and, on the other, the protection o …", "paragraph_id": "para_1225", "court_paragraph": 433 }, { "text": "434", "paragraph_id": "para_1226" }, { "text": "Second, although, as the fifth appellant notes, there may conceivably be a difference, as regards the harm to reputation, between a listing based on the (g) criterion and a listing based on the (d) criterion, in so far as the first covers categories of persons, entities or bodies that, unlike the se …", "paragraph_id": "para_1227", "court_paragraph": 434 }, { "text": "435", "paragraph_id": "para_1228" }, { "text": "It must be borne in mind that the action to establish non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, was introduced as an autonomous form of action, with a particular purpose to fulfil within the system of actions and subject to condition …", "paragraph_id": "para_1229", "court_paragraph": 435 }, { "text": "436", "paragraph_id": "para_1230" }, { "text": "In the situation in which the fifth appellant finds himself, that latter condition would be satisfied if, by his action for damages, he were not seeking annulment of the restrictive measures imposed under the (d) criterion but compensation for the damage allegedly suffered, in terms of reputation, as a result of the imposition of those measures under that criterion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1231", "court_paragraph": 436 }, { "text": "437", "paragraph_id": "para_1232" }, { "text": "Third, the case-law referred to in paragraph 430 of the present judgment is also in line with the rationale of the judicial review of decisions of the General Court under the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.", "paragraph_id": "para_1233", "court_paragraph": 437 }, { "text": "438", "paragraph_id": "para_1234" }, { "text": "In accordance with Article 169(1) and Article 170(1) of those rules, an appeal is to seek to have set aside, in whole or in part, the decision of the General Court as set out in the operative part of that decision and, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, to seek the same form of order as that sought at first instance, and is not to seek a different form of order.", "paragraph_id": "para_1235", "court_paragraph": 438 }, { "text": "439", "paragraph_id": "para_1236" }, { "text": "It follows that an appeal must contain grounds that seek to take issue in law with a decision of the General Court and which are capable of affecting the operative part of that decision, failing which those grounds will be found to be ineffective because they cannot lead to the setting aside, in ful …", "paragraph_id": "para_1237", "court_paragraph": 439 }, { "text": "440", "paragraph_id": "para_1238" }, { "text": "It is in accordance with the foregoing case-law that, in the field of restrictive measures, the Court has repeatedly held that, where the General Court had correctly found that restrictive measures adopted on the basis of one of the listing criteria established by the EU act concerned were well foun …", "paragraph_id": "para_1239", "court_paragraph": 440 }, { "text": "441", "paragraph_id": "para_1240" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to reject the first ground of appeal in Case C‑111/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1241", "court_paragraph": 441 }, { "text": "V.   Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_1242" }, { "text": "442", "paragraph_id": "para_1243" }, { "text": "In the light of all the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to dismiss the appeals in Joined Cases C‑696/23 P, C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P, C‑35/24 P and C‑111/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1244", "court_paragraph": 442 }, { "text": "VI.   Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_1245" }, { "text": "443", "paragraph_id": "para_1246" }, { "text": "Pursuant to Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs. Under Article 138(1) of those rules, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.", "paragraph_id": "para_1247", "court_paragraph": 443 }, { "text": "444", "paragraph_id": "para_1248" }, { "text": "Since the Council applied for the five appellants to be ordered to pay the costs in each of the joined cases and since they have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council in each of those cases.", "paragraph_id": "para_1249", "court_paragraph": 444 }, { "text": "445", "paragraph_id": "para_1250" }, { "text": "Under Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, also applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. In accordance with those provisions, the Czech Republic and the Commission, …", "paragraph_id": "para_1251", "court_paragraph": 445 }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby:", "paragraph_id": "para_1252" }, { "text": "1.", "paragraph_id": "para_1253" }, { "text": "Joins Cases C‑696/23 P, C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P, C‑35/24 P and C‑111/24 P for the purposes of the judgment;", "paragraph_id": "para_1254" }, { "text": "2.", "paragraph_id": "para_1255" }, { "text": "Dismisses the appeals;", "paragraph_id": "para_1256" }, { "text": "3.", "paragraph_id": "para_1257" }, { "text": "Orders Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, Mr Tigran Khudaverdyan, Mr Viktor Filippovich Rashnikov, Mr Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin and Mr German Khan to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in each of the joined cases;", "paragraph_id": "para_1258" }, { "text": "4.", "paragraph_id": "para_1259" }, { "text": "Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the European Commission to bear their own costs in Case C‑35/24 P.", "paragraph_id": "para_1260" }, { "text": "Lenaerts", "paragraph_id": "para_1261" }, { "text": "Lycourgos", "paragraph_id": "para_1262" }, { "text": "Jarukaitis", "paragraph_id": "para_1263" }, { "text": "Arastey Sahún", "paragraph_id": "para_1264" }, { "text": "Ziemele", "paragraph_id": "para_1265" }, { "text": "Passer", "paragraph_id": "para_1266" }, { "text": "Spineanu-Matei", "paragraph_id": "para_1267" }, { "text": "Condinanzi", "paragraph_id": "para_1268" }, { "text": "Schalin", "paragraph_id": "para_1269" }, { "text": "Regan", "paragraph_id": "para_1270" }, { "text": "Piçarra", "paragraph_id": "para_1271" }, { "text": "Kumin", "paragraph_id": "para_1272" }, { "text": "Smulders", "paragraph_id": "para_1273" }, { "text": "Gervasoni", "paragraph_id": "para_1274" }, { "text": "Fenger", "paragraph_id": "para_1275" }, { "text": "Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 March 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_1276" }, { "text": "A. Calot Escobar", "paragraph_id": "para_1277" }, { "text": "Registrar", "paragraph_id": "para_1278" }, { "text": "K. Lenaerts", "paragraph_id": "para_1279" }, { "text": "President", "paragraph_id": "para_1280" }, { "text": "(\n *1\n ) Languages of the case: English and French.", "paragraph_id": "para_1281" } ], "operative_part": "On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby:\n\nJoins Cases C‑696/23 P, C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P, C‑35/24 P and C‑111/24 P for the purposes of the judgment;\n\nOrders Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, Mr Tigran Khudaverdyan, Mr Viktor Filippovich Rashnikov, Mr Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin and Mr G …", "word_count": 51491, "cites": [ "C-696/23", "C-35/24", "C-704/23", "C-711/23", "C-111/24", "T-270/22", "T-335/22", "T-305/22", "T-282/22", "T-333/22", "C-588/21", "C-368/20", "C-369/20", "C-440/14", "C-451/08", "C-327/24", "C-46/22", "C-418/18", "C-72/15", "C-729/18", "C-271/24", "C-152/19", "C-710/22", "C-417/11", "C-291/98", "C-98/17", "C-541/20", "C-555/20", "C-703/23", "C-570/19", "C-61/22", "C-778/21", "C-798/21", "C-311/18", "C-265/19", "C-702/23", "C-225/17", "C-241/19", "C-348/12", "C-732/18", "T-202/12", "C-152/18", "C-153/18", "C-601/15", "C-376/10", "C-402/05", "C-415/05", "C-130/10", "C-805/24", "C-605/13", "C-478/11", "C-482/11", "C-431/19", "C-432/19", "C-173/22", "C-204/00", "C-205/00", "C-211/00", "C-213/00", "C-217/00", "C-219/00", "C-441/07", "C-280/12", "C-224/15", "C-584/20", "C-621/20", "C-348/20", "C-248/17", "C-584/10", "C-593/10", "C-595/10", "C-447/17", "C-479/17", "C-46/98", "C-71/09", "C-73/09", "C-76/09" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "bc4e3e4e88e648c4ee93e693f5e72c6413281ff3d9a8345cb1b10a7f8036c390", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62023CJ0696.ENG.xhtml.ECR_62023CJ0696_EN_01.html", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T20:56:05.247+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/62023cj0696", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:62023cj0696", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:62023cj0696", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:62023cj0696", "verification_scope": { "stored_hash_is_source_verification": false, "official_source_comparison": "not_performed", "legal_review": "not_assessed" }, "decision_object": { "schema_version": "1", "object_id": "decision:eu:62023cj0696", "judgment_class": "E", "operative_part": "present", "cites_count": 77, "word_count": 51491, "decision_url": null }, "agent_links": { "agent_root": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json", "agent_overview": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview" } }, "hash": "sha256:952416cfd3cac5f1ee7c7dc5ec4827adae6efdfabdaba00cc20374a89714ac90", "version": "legal-2026-11-02", "expires": "2026-11-03T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-11-02+legal-2026-11-02+2026-11-02T16:22:18", "content_hash": "sha256:952416cfd3cac5f1ee7c7dc5ec4827adae6efdfabdaba00cc20374a89714ac90", "revalidate_after": "2026-11-02T23:32:45.323Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62023cj0696", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:62023cj0696" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:62023cj0696" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:62023cj0696" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }