{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62024cj0816", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62024cj0816)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:1cb91d", "proof": "sha256:51cfa306925363b4f009c3ab777aa679f1c038953259b56913e5cf85cb2eefe1", "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:62024cj0816", "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": "62024CJ0816", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "18 June 2026 (\n *1\n )", "paragraphs": [ "para_4" ] }, { "title": "In Joined Cases C‑816/24 P, C‑817/24 P and C‑818/24 P", "paragraphs": [ "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" ] }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [ "para_32" ] }, { "title": "Legal context and background to the dispute", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [ "para_35" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [ "para_37" ] }, { "title": "4", "paragraphs": [ "para_39" ] }, { "title": "5", "paragraphs": [ "para_41", "para_42", "para_43" ] }, { "title": "(4)", "paragraphs": [ "para_45" ] }, { "title": "(5)", "paragraphs": [ "para_47" ] }, { "title": "6", "paragraphs": [ "para_49", "para_50", "para_51" ] }, { "title": "(5)", "paragraphs": [ "para_53" ] }, { "title": "(6)", "paragraphs": [ "para_55", "para_56" ] }, { "title": "(10)", "paragraphs": [ "para_58" ] }, { "title": "7", "paragraphs": [ "para_60" ] }, { "title": "8", "paragraphs": [ "para_62" ] }, { "title": "9", "paragraphs": [ "para_64", "para_65" ] }, { "title": "(a)", "paragraphs": [ "para_67" ] }, { "title": "(b)", "paragraphs": [ "para_69" ] }, { "title": "10", "paragraphs": [ "para_71" ] }, { "title": "11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Article 1j of Regulation No 765/2006 is worded as follows:", "paragraphs": [ "para_74" ] }, { "title": "(a)", "paragraphs": [ "para_76", "para_77" ] }, { "title": "12", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Article 1k of that regulation provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_80" ] }, { "title": "(a)", "paragraphs": [ "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85" ] }, { "title": "(i)", "paragraphs": [ "para_87" ] }, { "title": "(ii)", "paragraphs": [ "para_89", "para_90" ] }, { "title": "13", "paragraphs": [ "para_92" ] }, { "title": "14", "paragraphs": [ "para_94" ] }, { "title": "15", "paragraphs": [ "para_96", "para_97", "para_98" ] }, { "title": "16", "paragraphs": [ "para_100", "para_101", "para_102" ] }, { "title": "17", "paragraphs": [ "para_104", "para_105", "para_106" ] }, { "title": "18", "paragraphs": [ "para_108" ] }, { "title": "The procedure before the General Court and the judgments under appeal", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "19", "paragraphs": [ "para_111" ] }, { "title": "20", "paragraphs": [ "para_113" ] }, { "title": "21", "paragraphs": [ "para_115" ] }, { "title": "22", "paragraphs": [ "para_117" ] }, { "title": "23", "paragraphs": [ "para_119" ] }, { "title": "24", "paragraphs": [ "para_121" ] }, { "title": "25", "paragraphs": [ "para_123" ] }, { "title": "26", "paragraphs": [ "para_125" ] }, { "title": "27", "paragraphs": [ "para_127" ] }, { "title": "28", "paragraphs": [ "para_129" ] }, { "title": "29", "paragraphs": [ "para_131" ] }, { "title": "30", "paragraphs": [ "para_133" ] }, { "title": "31", "paragraphs": [ "para_135" ] }, { "title": "32", "paragraphs": [ "para_137" ] }, { "title": "33", "paragraphs": [ "para_139" ] }, { "title": "34", "paragraphs": [ "para_141" ] }, { "title": "35", "paragraphs": [ "para_143" ] }, { "title": "36", "paragraphs": [ "para_145" ] }, { "title": "37", "paragraphs": [ "para_147" ] }, { "title": "38", "paragraphs": [ "para_149" ] }, { "title": "39", "paragraphs": [ "para_151" ] }, { "title": "40", "paragraphs": [ "para_153" ] }, { "title": "41", "paragraphs": [ "para_155" ] }, { "title": "Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "42", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In Case C‑816/24 P, Belaruskali submits that the Court should:", "paragraphs": [ "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164" ] }, { "title": "43", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In Case C‑817/24 P, Mr Golovaty submits that the Court should:", "paragraphs": [ "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172" ] }, { "title": "44", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In Case C‑818/24 P, BPC submits that the Court should:", "paragraphs": [ "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182" ] }, { "title": "45", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In all three appeals, the Council contends that the Court should:", "paragraphs": [ "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190" ] }, { "title": "46", "paragraphs": [ "para_192" ] }, { "title": "47", "paragraphs": [ "para_194" ] }, { "title": "48", "paragraphs": [ "para_196" ] }, { "title": "The appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "49", "paragraphs": [ "para_199" ] }, { "title": "50", "paragraphs": [ "para_201" ] }, { "title": "51", "paragraphs": [ "para_203" ] }, { "title": "52", "paragraphs": [ "para_205" ] }, { "title": "53", "paragraphs": [ "para_207", "para_208" ] }, { "title": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "54", "paragraphs": [ "para_211" ] }, { "title": "55", "paragraphs": [ "para_213" ] }, { "title": "56", "paragraphs": [ "para_215" ] }, { "title": "57", "paragraphs": [ "para_217" ] }, { "title": "58", "paragraphs": [ "para_219" ] }, { "title": "59", "paragraphs": [ "para_221" ] }, { "title": "60", "paragraphs": [ "para_223" ] }, { "title": "61", "paragraphs": [ "para_225" ] }, { "title": "62", "paragraphs": [ "para_227" ] }, { "title": "63", "paragraphs": [ "para_229" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "64", "paragraphs": [ "para_232" ] }, { "title": "65", "paragraphs": [ "para_234" ] }, { "title": "66", "paragraphs": [ "para_236" ] }, { "title": "67", "paragraphs": [ "para_238" ] }, { "title": "68", "paragraphs": [ "para_240" ] }, { "title": "69", "paragraphs": [ "para_242" ] }, { "title": "70", "paragraphs": [ "para_244" ] }, { "title": "71", "paragraphs": [ "para_246" ] }, { "title": "72", "paragraphs": [ "para_248" ] }, { "title": "73", "paragraphs": [ "para_250" ] }, { "title": "74", "paragraphs": [ "para_252" ] }, { "title": "75", "paragraphs": [ "para_254" ] }, { "title": "76", "paragraphs": [ "para_256" ] }, { "title": "77", "paragraphs": [ "para_258" ] }, { "title": "78", "paragraphs": [ "para_260" ] }, { "title": "79", "paragraphs": [ "para_262" ] }, { "title": "80", "paragraphs": [ "para_264" ] }, { "title": "81", "paragraphs": [ "para_266" ] }, { "title": "82", "paragraphs": [ "para_268" ] }, { "title": "83", "paragraphs": [ "para_270" ] }, { "title": "84", "paragraphs": [ "para_272" ] }, { "title": "85", "paragraphs": [ "para_274" ] }, { "title": "86", "paragraphs": [ "para_276" ] }, { "title": "87", "paragraphs": [ "para_278" ] }, { "title": "88", "paragraphs": [ "para_280" ] }, { "title": "89", "paragraphs": [ "para_282" ] }, { "title": "90", "paragraphs": [ "para_284", "para_285" ] }, { "title": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "91", "paragraphs": [ "para_288" ] }, { "title": "92", "paragraphs": [ "para_290" ] }, { "title": "93", "paragraphs": [ "para_292" ] }, { "title": "94", "paragraphs": [ "para_294" ] }, { "title": "95", "paragraphs": [ "para_296" ] }, { "title": "96", "paragraphs": [ "para_298" ] }, { "title": "97", "paragraphs": [ "para_300" ] }, { "title": "98", "paragraphs": [ "para_302" ] }, { "title": "99", "paragraphs": [ "para_304" ] }, { "title": "100", "paragraphs": [ "para_306" ] }, { "title": "101", "paragraphs": [ "para_308" ] }, { "title": "102", "paragraphs": [ "para_310" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "103", "paragraphs": [ "para_313" ] }, { "title": "104", "paragraphs": [ "para_315" ] }, { "title": "105", "paragraphs": [ "para_317" ] }, { "title": "106", "paragraphs": [ "para_319" ] }, { "title": "107", "paragraphs": [ "para_321" ] }, { "title": "108", "paragraphs": [ "para_323" ] }, { "title": "109", "paragraphs": [ "para_325" ] }, { "title": "110", "paragraphs": [ "para_327" ] }, { "title": "111", "paragraphs": [ "para_329" ] }, { "title": "112", "paragraphs": [ "para_331" ] }, { "title": "113", "paragraphs": [ "para_333" ] }, { "title": "114", "paragraphs": [ "para_335" ] }, { "title": "115", "paragraphs": [ "para_337" ] }, { "title": "116", "paragraphs": [ "para_339" ] }, { "title": "117", "paragraphs": [ "para_341" ] }, { "title": "118", "paragraphs": [ "para_343" ] }, { "title": "119", "paragraphs": [ "para_345" ] }, { "title": "120", "paragraphs": [ "para_347" ] }, { "title": "121", "paragraphs": [ "para_349" ] }, { "title": "122", "paragraphs": [ "para_351" ] }, { "title": "123", "paragraphs": [ "para_353" ] }, { "title": "124", "paragraphs": [ "para_355" ] }, { "title": "125", "paragraphs": [ "para_357" ] }, { "title": "126", "paragraphs": [ "para_359" ] }, { "title": "127", "paragraphs": [ "para_361" ] }, { "title": "128", "paragraphs": [ "para_363" ] }, { "title": "129", "paragraphs": [ "para_365" ] }, { "title": "130", "paragraphs": [ "para_367" ] }, { "title": "131", "paragraphs": [ "para_369" ] }, { "title": "132", "paragraphs": [ "para_371" ] }, { "title": "133", "paragraphs": [ "para_373" ] }, { "title": "134", "paragraphs": [ "para_375" ] }, { "title": "135", "paragraphs": [ "para_377" ] }, { "title": "136", "paragraphs": [ "para_379" ] }, { "title": "137", "paragraphs": [ "para_381" ] }, { "title": "138", "paragraphs": [ "para_383" ] }, { "title": "139", "paragraphs": [ "para_385" ] }, { "title": "The second grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "140", "paragraphs": [ "para_389" ] }, { "title": "141", "paragraphs": [ "para_391" ] }, { "title": "142", "paragraphs": [ "para_393" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "143", "paragraphs": [ "para_396" ] }, { "title": "The first ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "144", "paragraphs": [ "para_400" ] }, { "title": "145", "paragraphs": [ "para_402" ] }, { "title": "146", "paragraphs": [ "para_404" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "147", "paragraphs": [ "para_407" ] }, { "title": "148", "paragraphs": [ "para_409" ] }, { "title": "149", "paragraphs": [ "para_411" ] }, { "title": "150", "paragraphs": [ "para_413" ] }, { "title": "151", "paragraphs": [ "para_415" ] }, { "title": "The second part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "152", "paragraphs": [ "para_419" ] }, { "title": "153", "paragraphs": [ "para_421" ] }, { "title": "154", "paragraphs": [ "para_423" ] }, { "title": "155", "paragraphs": [ "para_425" ] }, { "title": "156", "paragraphs": [ "para_427" ] }, { "title": "157", "paragraphs": [ "para_429" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "158", "paragraphs": [ "para_432" ] }, { "title": "159", "paragraphs": [ "para_434" ] }, { "title": "160", "paragraphs": [ "para_436" ] }, { "title": "161", "paragraphs": [ "para_438" ] }, { "title": "162", "paragraphs": [ "para_440" ] }, { "title": "163", "paragraphs": [ "para_442" ] }, { "title": "164", "paragraphs": [ "para_444" ] }, { "title": "165", "paragraphs": [ "para_446" ] }, { "title": "166", "paragraphs": [ "para_448" ] }, { "title": "167", "paragraphs": [ "para_450" ] }, { "title": "The sixth part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "168", "paragraphs": [ "para_454" ] }, { "title": "169", "paragraphs": [ "para_456" ] }, { "title": "Findings of the Court", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "170", "paragraphs": [ "para_459" ] }, { "title": "171", "paragraphs": [ "para_461" ] }, { "title": "172", "paragraphs": [ "para_463" ] }, { "title": "173", "paragraphs": [ "para_465" ] }, { "title": "Conclusion", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "174", "paragraphs": [ "para_468" ] }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "175", "paragraphs": [ "para_471" ] }, { "title": "176", "paragraphs": [ "para_473" ] }, { "title": "177", "paragraphs": [ "para_475" ] }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby:", "paragraphs": [ "para_477" ] }, { "title": "Joins Cases C‑816/24 P, C‑817/24 P and C‑818/24 P for the purposes of the judgment;", "paragraphs": [ "para_479" ] }, { "title": "Dismisses the appeals;", "paragraphs": [ "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484" ] }, { "title": "Passer", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Regan", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Smulders", "paragraphs": [ "para_488" ] }, { "title": "A. Calot Escobar", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Registrar", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J. Passer", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "President of the Chamber", "paragraphs": [ "para_493" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "62024CJ0816", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "18 June 2026 (\n *1\n )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "(Appeal – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine – Freezing of funds and economic resources – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds – Inclusion of the appellants’ names – …", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Joined Cases C‑816/24 P, C‑817/24 P and C‑818/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 27 November 2024,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Belaruskali AAT , established in Soligorsk (Belarus), represented by E. Anevlavi, dikigoros,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "appellant in Case C‑816/24 P,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Ivan Ivanovich Golovaty , residing in Listopadovichi (Belarus), represented by E. Anevlavi, dikigoros,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "appellant in Case C‑817/24 P,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Belarusian Potash Company AAT , established in Minsk (Belarus), represented by C. Cauvin, avocate, B. Evtimov, advokat, and V. Ostrovskis, advokatas,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "appellant in Case C‑818/24 P,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "the other parties to the proceedings being:", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Council of the European\n Union , represented by A. Boggio-Tomasaz, B. Driessen and J. Rurarz, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "defendant at first instance,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "supported by:", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Republic of Lithuania , represented by K. Dieninis and V. Kazlauskaitė‑Švenčionienė, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "intervener in the appeal,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Kingdom of\n Belgium , represented by C. Pochet and M. Van Regemorter, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "intervener at first instance (C‑816/24 P),", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Republic of Latvia,", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "intervener at first instance,", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "composed of J. Passer, President of the Chamber, E. Regan and B. Smulders (Rapporteur), Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Advocate General: J. Kokott,", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "By their respective appeals, Belaruskali AAT, Mr Ivan Ivanovich Golovaty and Belarusian Potash Company AAT (‘BPC’) seek to have set aside, first (Case C‑816/24 P), the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 September 2024, Belaruskali v Council ( T‑528/22 , EU:T:2024:633 ; ‘the fi …", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "Legal context and background to the dispute", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "The factual and legal context of the disputes is set out in paragraphs 2 to 22 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 2 to 19 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 2 to 18 of the third judgment under appeal. For the purposes of the present cases, that context may be summarised and supplemented as follows.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "The present cases have been brought in the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union since 2004 in view of the situation in Belarus with regard to the attacks, in that third country, on democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and of those restrictive measures adopted, since 2022, in view of the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine.", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "On 18 May 2006, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus ( OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1 ), the title of which was replaced, under Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 ( OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1 ), by that of ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus’.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "On 23 January 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/36/CFSP amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus ( OJ 2012 L 19, p. 31 ), recitals 3 to 5 of which stated:", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "‘(3)", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "In view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional restrictive measures against Belarus should be adopted.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "(4)", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "The restrictions on admission and on the freezing of funds and economic resources should be applied to persons responsible for serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, in particular persons in a leading position, and to persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the [Lukashenko] regime, in particular persons and entities providing financial or material support to the regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "(5)", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "[Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus ( OJ 2010 L 280, p. 18 )] should be amended accordingly’.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "On 15 October 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus ( OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1 ), recitals 4 to 6 and 10 of which state the following:", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "‘(4)", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "Measures have also been imposed against those responsible for the fraudulent elections and referendum in Belarus on 17 October 2004, for the violations of international electoral standards in the presidential elections in Belarus on 19 March 2006 and on 19 December 2010, as well as those who are responsible for severe human rights violations and the repression of peaceful demonstrators in the aftermath of those elections and that referendum.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "(5)", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "Particular responsibility is borne by the officials directly involved or responsible for the fraudulent nature of the presidential elections and referendum; those responsible for organising and implementing the dissemination of falsified information through the state-controlled media; those responsi …", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "(6)", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "Furthermore, given the gravity of the situation, measures should also be imposed on persons in a leading position in Belarus, and on persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the [Lukashenko] regime, in particular persons and entities providing financial or material support to the regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "(10)", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "For the sake of clarity, the measures imposed by Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be integrated into a single legal instrument’.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "On 24 February 2022, the President of the Russian Federation declared a war of aggression against Ukraine and Russian armed forces began an attack on that third country, including from the territory of Belarus.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "On the same day, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy published a declaration on behalf of the European Union condemning the ‘unprovoked invasion’ of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation and stated that ‘the price to be paid for the involvemen …", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Decision 2012/642, as amended by Decision 2023/421 (‘Decision 2012/642’), the title of which was, in the meantime, replaced by that of ‘Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine’, provides, in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) thereof (‘criterion (a)’ and ‘criterion (b)’, respectively):", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "‘All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex I that meet any of the following criteria shall be frozen:", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "(a)", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "persons, entities or bodies responsible for serious violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition, or whose activities otherwise seriously undermine democracy or the rule of law in Belarus, and any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with such persons, entities or bodies;", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "(b)", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefiting from or supporting the [Lukashenko regime]’.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Regulation No 765/2006, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2023/419 (‘Regulation No 765/2006’), the title of which was, in the meantime, replaced by that of ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement …", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Article 1j of Regulation No 765/2006 is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "‘It shall be prohibited to directly or indirectly purchase, sell, provide investment services for or assistance in the issuance of, or otherwise deal with transferable securities and money-market instruments with a maturity exceeding 90 days, issued after 29 June 2021 by:", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "(a)", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "the Republic of Belarus, its Government, its public bodies, corporations or agencies;", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "Article 1k of that regulation provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "‘1.   It shall be prohibited to directly or indirectly make or be part of any arrangement to make new loans or credit with a maturity exceeding 90 days, after 29 June 2021, to:", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "(a)", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "the Republic of Belarus, its Government, its public bodies, corporations or agencies;", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "2.   The prohibition shall not apply to loans or credits that have a specific and documented objective to provide financing for non-prohibited imports or exports of goods and non-financial services between the Union and any third State, including the expenditure for goods and services from another third State that is necessary for executing the export or import contracts.", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "3.   The competent authority of a Member State may also grant, under such terms as it deems appropriate, an authorisation to make or be part of the loans or credits referred to in paragraph 1 if it has determined that:", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "(i)", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "the activities concerned are for the purpose of providing support for the Belarusian civilian population, such as humanitarian assistance, environmental projects, and nuclear safety or the loan or credit is necessary to comply with legal or regulatory minimum reserve or similar requirements to meet solvency and liquidity criteria for financial entities in Belarus which are majority-owned by financial institutions of the Union; and", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "(ii)", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "the activities concerned do not entail funds or economic resources being made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a person, entity or body referred to in Article 2.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "On 3 June 2022, the Council adopted the initial acts at issue. It is apparent from recital 2 thereof respectively that ‘in view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus and the continuing violations of human rights and repression of civil society and democratic opposition, 12 individuals and eight entities should be included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures’.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "By way of those acts, the appellants were included, in so far as concerns Belaruskali and BPC, on the lists reproduced in the tables set out under point B in both Annex I to Decision 2012/642 and Annex I to Regulation No 765/2006 and, in so far as concerns Mr Golovaty, on the lists contained in the tables set out under point A of both annexes (together, ‘the lists in question’).", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "At point 28 of the tables set out in Annex I, B, to each of the initial acts at issue, Belaruskali is included on the lists in question on the following grounds, set out in the fifth column of each table:", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "‘OJSC Belaruskali is a state-owned enterprise and one of the biggest potash producers in the world, providing 20% of global potash exports. As such, it is a major source of revenue and foreign currency for the [Lukashenko] regime. [Alexander Lukashenko] described it as “a national treasure, pride, one of the pillars of Belarusian exports”. Therefore, Belaruskali benefits from and supports the [Lukashenko] regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "Employees of Belaruskali who took part in strikes and peaceful protests in the aftermath of the fraudulent August 2020 presidential elections in Belarus were intimidated and dismissed by the company’s management. [Lukashenko] himself personally threatened to replace the strikers with miners from Ukraine. Therefore, Belaruskali is responsible for the repression of civil society in Belarus and supports the [Lukashenko] regime.’", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "As regards the inclusion of Mr Golovaty on the lists in question, point 195 in the tables set out in Annex I, A, to each of the initial acts at issue is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "‘Ivan [Golovaty] is the Director-General of the state-owned enterprise Belaruskali, which is a major source of revenue and foreign currency for the [Lukashenko] regime. He is a member of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly and holds multiple other high positions in Belarus. He has r …", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "The employees of Belaruskali who took part in strikes and peaceful protests in the aftermath of the fraudulent August 2020 presidential elections in Belarus were deprived of premiums and dismissed. [Lukashenko] himself personally threatened to replace the strikers with miners from Ukraine. Ivan [Golovaty] is therefore responsible for the repression of civil society.’", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "As to the inclusion of BPC, this is supported by the following grounds in point 29 of the tables set out in Annex I, B, to each of the initial acts at issue:", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "‘JSC [BPC] is the exporting arm of Belarusian state potash producer Belaruskali. Belaruskali is one of the largest sources of revenue for the [Lukashenko] regime. Supplies from [BPC] account for 20% of global potash exports.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "The state guarantees [BPC] monopoly rights to export potassium fertilisers. Thanks to preferential treatment from the Belarusian authorities, the company earns a substantial revenue. Therefore, [BPC] benefits from and supports the [Lukashenko] regime.’", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "On 23 February 2023, the Council adopted Decision 2023/421 and Implementing Regulation 2023/419, by way of which it maintained the names of the appellants on the lists in question on the same grounds as those set out in the initial acts at issue, whilst adding, in so far as concerns Mr Golovaty, the …", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "The procedure before the General Court and the judgments under appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "By applications lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 30 August 2022, as subsequently modified, the appellants, who were the applicants at first instance, brought actions seeking annulment of the acts at issue in so far as these concern them respectively.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "In their actions, the appellants claimed, in particular, that the acts at issue had been adopted in disregard of the Council’s obligation to state reasons. Furthermore, they challenged the lawfulness, in the light of the principle of legal certainty, of criterion (b), in so far as the scope of the t …", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "21", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "By the judgments under appeal, the General Court dismissed those actions in their entirety. For the purposes of the present appeals, those judgments may be summarised as follows.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "22", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "As regards, in the first place, the alleged disregard, on the part of the Council, of its obligation to state reasons, the General Court ruled, in essence, in paragraphs 41 to 43, 209 and 210 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 33 to 36, 201 and 202 of the second judgment under appeal, an …", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "23", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "In so far as concerns the statement of reasons for the inclusion of BPC more specifically, the General Court held, in particular, in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the third judgment under appeal, that in order for the statement of reasons for the initial acts at issue to be sufficient for it to be found t …", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "24", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "In the second place, as to the compliance with the principle of legal certainty, in particular, of criterion (b) – that is, the listing criterion relating to benefiting from or supporting the Lukashenko regime – the General Court began by recalling, in paragraphs 49 to 52 of the first judgment under …", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "25", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "With the benefit of those clarifications, the General Court noted in essence, first of all, in paragraphs 56 to 59 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 67 to 70 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 52 to 55 of the third judgment under appeal, that criterion (b) – which had b …", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "26", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "In that connection, the General Court next recalled, in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 71 and 72 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 56 and 57 of the third judgment under appeal, that the restrictive measures against Belarus were initially taken a …", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "27", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "The General Court found, lastly, in paragraphs 62, 64 and 65 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 73, 75 and 76 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 58 to 60 of the third judgment under appeal, that the Council had thus sought to increase pressure on that regime by broadenin …", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "28", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "In the third place, as to the line of argument alleging errors of assessment, in so far as the Council had incorrectly concluded that the appellants satisfied the requirements under criterion (b), the General Court examined and rejected that line of argument, in so far as concerns Belaruskali, in pa …", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "29", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "As regards Belaruskali, the General Court examined in particular, first, in paragraphs 79 to 83 of the first judgment under appeal, whether the facts set out in paragraph 15 of the present judgment, which were put forward by the Council in the initial acts at issue in order to demonstrate that that …", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "30", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "Second, the General Court examined, on the one hand, in paragraphs 87 to 99 of the first judgment under appeal, whether those facts amounted to ‘support’ for the Lukashenko regime on the part of Belaruskali. The General Court held that that was indeed the case, in particular in the light of the fact …", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "31", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "On the other hand, in paragraphs 100 to 103 of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court ascertained whether those facts supported the conclusion that Belaruskali ‘benefited’ from the Lukashenko regime, which the General Court also confirmed, stating that that undertaking exercised a monopo …", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "32", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "In so far as concerns Mr Golovaty, the General Court examined, first, in paragraphs 108 to 116 of the second judgment under appeal, whether the facts set out in paragraph 16 of the present judgment, which were put forward by the Council in order to demonstrate that that person satisfied the requirem …", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "33", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "Second, the General Court ascertained, on the one hand, in paragraphs 120 to 129 of the second judgment under appeal, whether those facts amounted to ‘support’ for the Lukashenko regime on the part of Mr Golovaty. The General Court upheld that finding by holding, in particular, in paragraphs 127 and …", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "34", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "On the other hand, in paragraphs 130 to 137 of the second judgment under appeal, the General Court examined whether those facts supported the conclusion that Mr Golovaty ‘benefited’ from the Lukashenko regime, which it also upheld by stating, in paragraphs 131 to 134 of that judgment, that the perso …", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "35", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "As regards BPC, the General Court examined, first, in paragraphs 70 to 86 of the third judgment under appeal, whether the facts set out in paragraph 17 of the present judgment, which were put forward by the Council in order to demonstrate that that undertaking satisfied the requirements under criter …", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "36", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "Second, the General Court ascertained, on the one hand, in paragraphs 90 to 102 of the third judgment under appeal, whether those facts supported the conclusion that BPC ‘supported’ the Lukashenko regime. The General Court ruled that that was indeed the case by finding, in particular, in paragraphs …", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "37", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "In paragraph 102 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court added that the application of restrictive measures to BPC was also intended to prevent Belaruskali from being able to circumvent the effect of the restrictive measures taken against it by exerting pressure on its ‘exporting arm’.", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "38", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "Furthermore, in paragraphs 103 and 104 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court ascertained whether the facts concerned supported the conclusion that BPC ‘benefited’ from the Lukashenko regime. The General Court considered that that was indeed the case, finding that the mere fact that, …", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "39", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "In the fourth place, as to the line of argument, put forward by Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty respectively, alleging errors of assessment in so far as the Council, it was submitted, incorrectly found that the appellants satisfied the requirements under criterion (a), the General Court examined and rej …", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "40", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "In the fifth and last place, in paragraphs 156 to 184 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 184 to 197 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 109 to 112 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court examined and rejected the line of argument put forward by the appellants alleging that the restrictive measures taken against them were disproportionate.", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "41", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "In so far as concerns BPC in particular, the General Court held, in paragraph 111 of the third judgment under appeal, that that undertaking had maintained that the initial acts at issue infringed the principle of proportionality in that they had an extremely negative impact not only on BPC’s own int …", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "42", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "In Case C‑816/24 P, Belaruskali submits that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "set aside the first judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "annul the acts at issue, in so far as they concern Belaruskali; and", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "order the Council to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "43", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "In Case C‑817/24 P, Mr Golovaty submits that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "set aside the second judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "annul the acts at issue, in so far as they concern him; and", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "order the Council to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "44", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "In Case C‑818/24 P, BPC submits that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "set aside the third judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "annul the acts at issue, in so far as they concern BPC;", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "order the Council to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal; and", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "order the Republic of Latvia and any other intervener to bear their own costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "45", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "In all three appeals, the Council contends that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "dismiss the appeals;", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "in the alternative, should the Court decide to set aside the judgments under appeal and give final judgment itself, dismiss the application for annulment of the acts at issue; and", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "–", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "order the appellants to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "46", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "By documents lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 5 March 2025, the Republic of Lithuania sought leave to intervene in the present cases in support of the form of order sought by the Council. By decision of the President of the Court of 3 April 2025, that application was granted.", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "47", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "On 21 November 2025, the President of the Court invited the parties to express their views on the possible joinder of the present cases for the purposes of the further course of the proceedings. By letters of 1 December 2025, the appellants informed the Court of their opposition to the joinder of th …", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "48", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "By decision of 3 December 2025, the President of the Court decided that it was not necessary to join the cases at that stage of the procedure.", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "The appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "49", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "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 of the Court of Justice, bearing in mind that the objections expressed by the appellants in opposing the joinder, set out in paragraph 47 of the present judgment, relate solely to the possibility of a joinder for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure.", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "50", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "In Case C‑816/24 P, Belaruskali raises two grounds in support of its appeal. The first ground of appeal is divided into two parts, the first alleging error of law on the part of the General Court by failing correctly to apply the principle of legal certainty to the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’, fo …", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "51", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "In Case C‑817/24 P, Mr Golovaty raises two grounds in support of his appeal, which are worded in a manner essentially identical to those raised by Belaruskali.", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "52", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "In Case C‑818/24 P, BPC raises three grounds in support of its appeal, the first of which alleges an error of law on the part of the General Court in ruling that the Council had fulfilled its obligation to state the reasons as laid down in Article 296 TFEU. The second ground of appeal is divided int …", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "53", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "Since the arguments put forward in support of the first part of the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P are comparable to those relied upon in the context of the first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, it is appropriate to examine these together. Similarl …", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "The first part of the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P, and the first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "54", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "By the first part of the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P, and the first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, the appellants essentially submit that the General Court, first, failed to address their arguments that the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’, within the meaning of criterion (b), is not in line with the requirements stemming from the principle of legal certainty and, second, disregarded that principle.", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "55", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "In that connection, first, the appellants submit, by criticising, in particular, paragraphs 55, 60 and 61 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 66, 71 and 72 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 52 to 58 of the third judgment under appeal, that the General Court confined itse …", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "56", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "Second, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by failing to find that the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ is a source of legal uncertainty. According to the appellants, it is not possible, in the absence of any definition of that concept or of clarification in that regard from the …", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "57", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "This is all the more so, in the appellants’ submission, since the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ is necessarily distinct from those of ‘Republic of Belarus’, ‘Government’ and ‘State (of Belarus)’ or ‘(Belarusian) State’, as used elsewhere in Decision 2012/642 and Regulation No 765/2006, a distinction which the General Court failed to take into account.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "58", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "The appellants argue that it is apparent from Article 1j and Article 1k of Regulation No 765/2006 that several types of financial and investment operations, such as short-term loans, are still permitted, including where these are made, in particular, to the ‘Republic of Belarus’ as a State and ‘its Government’.", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "59", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Thus the mere fact of making payments into the budget of the Belarusian State, such as those on which the Council relied in order to justify including the appellants on the lists in question, cannot constitute support for the ‘Lukashenko regime’ for the purposes of criterion (b). It is submitted that to assert the opposite implies that there are no clear legal limits to the scope of that concept, and serves only to illustrate the legal uncertainty attached thereto.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "60", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "Furthermore, even if the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ were to be understood, as recital 6 of Decision 2012/642 suggests, in the appellants’ submission, as targeting persons in a leading position in Belarus, such persons would necessarily be the same as those referred to by name in Annex I to that …", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "61", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "It follows, in the appellants’ submission, that it is contrary to the principle of legal certainty to include those entities within the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’.", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "62", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "Third, BPC adds that the General Court also failed to clarify the phrases ‘benefiting’ from and ‘supporting’ the Lukashenko regime for the purposes of criterion (b).", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "63", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "The Council, supported by the Republic of Lithuania, disputes the merits of the appellants’ arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "64", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "In the first place, in so far as the appellants submit that the General Court failed to address the arguments by way of which they maintained that the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’, for the purposes of criterion (b), was not sufficiently clear and precise, with the result that it was contrary to th …", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "65", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "In that connection, according to settled case-law, the obligation of the General Court to state reasons, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is an essential procedural requirement that must be distinguished …", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "66", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "The obligation to state reasons does not require the General Court to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case, since the General Court’s reasoning may be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know …", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "67", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "In the present cases, it should be observed that the General Court examined the appellants’ arguments relating to the principle of legal certainty in paragraphs 49 to 66 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 60 to 77 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 45 to 62 of the third …", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "68", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "In that connection, it is true that, having recalled in that context, in particular, its case-law under which the broad wording of the listing criteria conferring a discretion on the Council may be compatible with the principle of legal certainty, and the case-law under which the meaning and scope o …", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "69", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "However, while the General Court did not reject each of those arguments individually, it nevertheless examined, in each of the actions before it, the complaint in support of which those arguments had been advanced and, in each instance, rejected that complaint by reference to its case-law, cited in the preceding paragraph, all whilst having regard to the context in which criterion (b) is used and the purposes of the rules of which it forms part.", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "70", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "It may already be inferred from the reference to that case-law that the arguments in question were rejected on the ground that the scope of criterion (b) can be determined by means of the methods of interpretation to which that case-law refers.", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "71", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "Above all, however, such a ground for rejecting the arguments of the parties is clear from a combined reading of that part of the General Court’s reasoning with that relating to the application, by the Council, of criterion (b), which is set out, in particular, in paragraphs 84 to 104 of the first judgment under appeal, paragraphs 117 to 137 of the second judgment under appeal, and paragraphs 87 to 106 of the third judgment under appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "72", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "Indeed, such a combined reading reveals that, in order to substantiate its decision that criterion (b) is sufficiently clear and precise as to comply with the principle of legal certainty in so far as concerns the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’, the General Court essentially found that it was possible, by reference to the usual meaning of that concept in everyday language, to determine whether a person benefited from or supported the ‘Lukashenko regime’.", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "73", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "In that context, it must be pointed out that it is clear from paragraphs 88 and 92 of the first judgment under appeal that the General Court relied on the financial support provided by Belaruskali to the ‘budget of Belarus’ and the fact that it paid dividends to the ‘Belarusian State’, which are ‘therefore at the disposal of the Lukashenko regime’, as elements capable of characterising support for that regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "74", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "Furthermore, it is clear from paragraphs 121 and 125 to 127 of the second judgment under appeal, read in conjunction, that in order to find that Mr Golovaty supported that regime, the General Court took into account those payments made by Belaruskali to the ‘State’, while Mr Golovaty exercised functions which conferred on him the power to manage that entity and to which he had been appointed by President Lukashenko.", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "75", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "Moreover, in order to find that BPC benefited from and supported that regime, the General Court referred, in paragraphs 95 and 104 of the third judgment under appeal, to the dividends that BPC might pay to the ‘State’ and to the preferential treatment that it received from the ‘Belarusian State’.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "76", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Consequently, in each of the judgments under appeal, the General Court found, in the factual circumstances under its assessment, that there was a link between the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ and the entity benefiting from or responsible for the advantages to which paragraphs 73 to 75 of the prese …", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "77", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "The appellants could therefore infer that the General Court had found that the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ was sufficiently clear and precise for it to be possible, in the circumstances of the case and in line with the principle of legal certainty, to determine the scope of that concept and, in s …", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "78", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "It follows that the General Court did not vitiate the judgments under appeal by an infringement of the obligation to state reasons when it rejected the appellants’ arguments alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty by criterion (b) in that the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ was not sufficiently precise.", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "79", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "As regards, in the second place, the question whether the General Court disregarded that principle in rejecting those arguments, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the principle of legal certainty requires, on the one hand, that the rules of law be clear and precise and, on t …", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "80", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, those requirements cannot be understood as meaning that the legislature or the Courts of the European Union must, in the context of a norm that the legislature adopts and those Courts interpret, refer to the various specific hypotheses in which an abstract norm may apply, given that those hypotheses cannot all be determined in advance (judgment of 1 August 2025, Timchenko v Council, C‑703/23 P , EU:C:2025:608 , paragraph  33 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "81", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "It is also clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that it cannot be considered that there has been infringement of the principle of legal certainty on the sole ground that the Courts of the European Union must interpret a provision of general application by resorting, where appropriate, to …", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "82", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "In the present cases, as is clear, in particular, from paragraphs 72 and 77 of the present judgment, the General Court held, in essence, that it was possible to interpret criterion (b), including the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ that it encompasses, by reference to its usual meaning in everyday la …", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "83", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "In doing so, and contrary to what the appellants maintain, the General Court could find that that criterion, thus interpreted, complied with the principle of legal certainty. As is clear from paragraph 80 of the present judgment, it was not required, moreover, to refer to any other specific hypotheses in which that criterion and, in particular, the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’, could be applied, and even less to furnish an abstract definition of that concept.", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "84", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "That finding is not invalidated, first, by the appellants’ argument that the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’ is necessarily distinct from those of ‘Belarusian State’, ‘Republic of Belarus’ or that of its ‘Government’ and therefore cannot overlap with the latter concepts without becoming a source of ambiguity and legal uncertainty.", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "85", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "It is in fact common that several concepts, each with a separate meaning, be applicable to one person or entity, without such a circumstance being capable, per se, of calling into question the clarity or precision of those concepts. This is the case for the concepts referred to in the preceding para …", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "86", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "The fact that Articles 1j and 1k of Regulation No 765/2006 authorise certain financial operations involving the Republic of Belarus and its government has no bearing in that regard, since the purpose of those provisions is not to draw a distinction between those entities and the concept of ‘Lukashen …", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "87", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "Second, the appellants’ argument that the Belarusian State and its government do not fall within the scope of the concept of ‘Lukashenko regime’, since it covers only those persons included on the lists in question on the grounds of their membership of that regime, which is not the case for that Sta …", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "88", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "Consequently, the appellants have failed to demonstrate how the General Court disregarded the principle of legal certainty by finding that the financial operations and the advantages involving the Belarusian State, referred to in paragraph 82 of the present judgment, could validly be taken into consideration for the purposes of criterion (b), since they serve to establish the existence of benefit from or support for the Lukashenko regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "89", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "In the third and last place, in so far as BPC maintains – without, moreover, formulating specific arguments in support of the allegation – that the General Court failed to clarify the scope of the verbs ‘benefiting’ from and ‘supporting’ the Lukashenko regime, as they appear in the wording of criter …", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "90", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it must be found that the first part of the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P, and the first part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, are unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "The second part of the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P, and the first, second, third, fourth and fifth parts of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "91", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "By the second part of the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P, and the first, second, third, fourth and fifth parts of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, the appellants submit that the General Court made several errors in its assessment of the facts and the evidenc …", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "92", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "In that connection, Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty object, first, to the fact that the General Court relied, in paragraph 102 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraph 134 of the second judgment under appeal, on press articles on the economic situation in Belarus which, they submit, did not conc …", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "93", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "Second, Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty claim that the facts relied upon against them do not constitute conduct specific to them which may be viewed to establish that they benefit from or support the Lukashenko regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "94", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "In that connection, neither Belaruskali’s alleged monopoly over the production of potassium fertilisers in Belarus, nor the fact that the undertaking is owned by the Belarusian State, as observed in paragraphs 100 and 103 of the first judgment under appeal, can – be it alone or cumulatively – constitute forms of ‘benefit’ from or ‘support’ for that regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "95", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "The same may be said in respect of Mr Golovaty, it is argued, on account of the fact, on which the General Court relied in paragraphs 113 and 114 of the second judgment under appeal, that he was the Director-General of Belaruskali and that he ‘occupies several other high positions in Belarus’.", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "96", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "Furthermore, Belaruskali criticises the General Court’s assessment, set out in paragraphs 99 and 101 of the first judgment under appeal, that its role in the Belarusian economy and the fact that it belongs to a sector of the economy that is a source of significant revenue for the Lukashenko regime justify its inclusion on the lists in question under criterion (b).", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "97", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "Mr Golovaty adds that his activities as a prominent businessperson in the Belarusian economy, the fact of being closely connected to Mr Lukashenko as well as being an actor allegedly ‘aligned with the Belarusian authorities’, as noted in paragraphs 115, 128 and 135 of the second judgment under appeal, also cannot justify his inclusion on the lists in question.", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "98", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "BPC disputes, first, the General Court’s finding, in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the third judgment under appeal, that it enjoyed a monopoly for the export of potassium fertilisers at the time when the acts at issue concerning BPC were adopted, which monopoly in fact expired in March 2022; and the findi …", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "99", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "Furthermore, in paragraphs 70 to 77, 99 and 101 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court incorrectly held – while according, in that context, a disproportionate weight to the evidence put forward by the Council – that BPC was the ‘exporting arm’ of Belaruskali, whereas they are, in fact, two separate entities. In doing so, the General Court incorrectly, it is submitted, relied not on the individual conduct of BPC, but on that of Belaruskali.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "100", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "Second, BPC submits that the elements on which the General Court relied with regard to it in paragraph 95 of the third judgment under appeal – namely that it is owned by the Belarusian State and that it has ‘links’ with Belaruskali, with the result that it ‘may’ pay dividends to the public entities …", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "101", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "Moreover, in order to rule that BPC provided financial support to that regime, the General Court relied, it is submitted, in paragraphs 100 to 102 of that judgment, not on the personal conduct of that company – as is required, however, under criterion (b) – but rather on Belaruskali’s turnover, thereby incorrectly attributing the activities of the latter company to BPC.", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "102", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "The Council contends, as a preliminary point, that, by way of certain of its arguments, namely those relating to the absence of a monopoly or of preferential treatment along with the nature of its links with Belaruskali, BPC is in fact asking that the Court of Justice carry out a fresh assessment of …", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "103", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "It should be recalled that, under Article 256 TFEU and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal is to be limited to points of law. The General Court alone has jurisdiction to establish and assess the relevant facts and to evaluate the evidence. The appraisal …", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "104", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Furthermore, any distortion must, according to settled case-law, be clear from the documents in the case, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence. To that end, an appellant must indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted by the Gen …", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "105", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "In the present case, as regards, in the first place, the appellants’ claims, as summarised in paragraphs 92, 98 and 99 of the present judgment, it should be observed that those claims seek essentially to object to the findings and factual assessments made by the General Court regarding the functioni …", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "106", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "It follows that, pursuant to the case-law of the Court of Justice recalled in paragraph 103 of the present judgment, those claims are admissible only in so far as, by way thereof, the appellants seek not to obtain from the Court of Justice a fresh assessment of the evidence produced before the General Court, but rather to claim that the latter distorted that evidence or disregarded the rules on the taking of evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "107", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "In so far as concerns, first, the claims made by Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty, set out in paragraph 92 of the present judgment, these are inadmissible, inasmuch as they ask that the Court of Justice carry out a fresh assessment of the evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "108", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "In any event, it is clear, first of all, in so far as those claims concern the press articles referred to in paragraph 102 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraph 134 of the second judgment under appeal, and supposing that it is appropriate to understand those claims as alleging distortion …", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "109", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Those appellants in fact confine themselves to claiming, in that context, that those articles do not ‘concern [them] individually’, a claim which does not, however, contradict the General Court’s assessment, contained in those paragraphs, that those articles ‘demonstrate that, under the regime of President Lukashenko, the Belarusian economy is characterised by the regime’s control over both the public and private sectors and by a system that rewards loyalty to the regime’.", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "110", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "Next, in so far as Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty appear to claim that the General Court infringed the rules on the taking of evidence on the ground that one of the articles referred to in paragraph 108 of the present judgment, namely that which the General Court mentioned as ‘the article published on the website “cepa.org” on 8 December 2021’, did not form part of the case file, that claim has no basis in fact and is, therefore, unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "111", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "Suffice it to note, as the Council correctly states, that there was only one article retrieved from that website amongst the items of evidence submitted by that institution before the General Court, which article was dated 30 July 2020. While it is therefore true that the General Court was mistaken, in the first and second judgments under appeal, as to the date of that article, that document was indeed on the case file submitted to the General Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "112", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "Lastly, in so far as Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty claim that the General Court erred in holding that Belaruskali was ‘the sole producer of potassium fertilisers in Belarus’ and that there existed ‘a monopoly exercised by [Belaruskali]’, it must be held that that criticism is well founded.", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "113", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "Indeed, while it is common ground, as the Council stated in the grounds justifying the inclusion of that undertaking on the lists in question and as the General Court held in paragraphs 80 and 83 of the first judgment under appeal as well as in paragraph 110 of the second judgment under appeal, that …", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "114", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "Moreover, contrary to what the Council contends in its rejoinder, the latter paragraphs in the first and second judgments under appeal cannot be read as relating, in fact, to the monopoly exercised, until March 2022, by BPC on the market for the export of potassium fertilisers.", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "115", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "It follows that the General Court vitiated its examination with a distortion of evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "116", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "That said, the complaint, whilst well founded, is nonetheless ineffective. It is, in fact, directed against a ground which is but one amongst those on which the General Court relied in finding, in paragraphs 103 and 104 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraph 137 of the second judgment unde …", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "117", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "Second, as regards BPC’s claims, summarised in paragraphs 98 and 99 of the present judgment, these are also inadmissible, inasmuch as they ask that the Court carry out a fresh assessment of the evidence produced before the General Court, within the meaning of the case-law recalled in paragraph 103 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "118", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "In any event, even if those claims were to be understood as seeking to argue that the General Court distorted certain items of evidence, they must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "119", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "In fact, on the one hand, as regards the monopoly rights from which BPC benefited, the General Court clearly acknowledged that that monopoly ended in March 2022, as it expressly noted in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the third judgment under appeal, while stating, in paragraph 83 of that judgment, that BP …", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "120", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "In that context, contrary to what BPC appears to claim by misreading the third judgment under appeal in that regard, the General Court did not find that the fact that an undertaking is granted, by that regime, an export licence in a regulated market necessarily involved preferential treatment, but h …", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "121", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "On the other hand, BPC has failed to demonstrate any distortion on the part of the General Court in so far as the latter confirmed, in particular in paragraph 77 of the third judgment under appeal, that the Council had correctly considered that BPC was the ‘exporting arm’ of Belaruskali, which capac …", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "122", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "In the second place, in so far as concerns the appellants’ submissions referred to in paragraphs 93 to 97, 100 and 101 of the present judgment, these consist in claiming, essentially, that the General Court erred in its characterisation by finding that the facts on which the Council had relied against the appellants were sufficient for it to be considered that they ‘benefited’ from or ‘supported’ the Lukashenko regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "123", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "As regards, in that connection, first, the claim – which is essentially put forward by all three appellants – that the General Court failed to identify conduct specific to them in order to make such a finding, whereas only conduct attributable to them individually can characterise ‘benefiting’ from …", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "124", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "First of all, as regards Belaruskali, the General Court relied (i) in paragraphs 92 and 97 of the first judgment under appeal, on the dividends that that undertaking paid to the Belarusian State in order to find that it was ‘supporting’ the Lukashenko regime, and (ii) in paragraph 101 of that judgme …", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "125", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "Next, in so far as concerns Mr Golovaty, the General Court also took note of conduct specific to him, inferring, on the one hand, in paragraphs 127 to 129 of the second judgment under appeal, his support for the Lukashenko regime from the fact that, in particular, when he was appointed to the post o …", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "126", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "Lastly, in so far as concerns BPC, the General Court admittedly took into consideration corporate and business links that existed between BPC and Belaruskali as well as its position as the ‘exporting arm’ of the latter in order to find, in paragraph 101 of the third judgment under appeal, that ‘the …", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "127", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "As regards, second, the appellants’ submissions set out in paragraphs 96, 97 and 100 of the present judgment, it must be held as follows.", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "128", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty essentially submit that belonging to a sector of the economy that is a source of significant revenue for the Lukashenko regime and/or being a prominent businessperson and closely associated with President Lukashenko cannot be regarded as elements that meet criterion (b) b …", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "129", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "It is, however, clear that that line of argument is based on a misreading of the first and second judgments under appeal and is therefore unfounded, inasmuch as the General Court did not simply rely on the role or position of Belaruskali or Mr Golovaty in the Belarusian economy and their links with …", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "130", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "It should, moreover, be added that, contrary to what Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty appear to submit, there is nothing to rule out the possibility that one and the same person come under more than one criterion for inclusion on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 August 2025, Timchenko v Council, C‑703/23 P , EU:C:2025:608 , paragraph  49 ).", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "131", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, the General Court could correctly find, in paragraph 104 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraphs 129 and 137 of the second judgment under appeal, that the Council did not err in considering that Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty ‘benefited’ from and ‘supported’ the Lukashenko regime, within the meaning of criterion (b).", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "132", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "As for BPC, it submits that the General Court erred in law by inferring financial support, on the part of BPC, for the Lukashenko regime, from (i) the finding, in paragraph 97 of the third judgment under appeal, that it pays taxes calculated, in particular, on the basis of the revenue that it earns …", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "133", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "In that connection, it should be observed, first, that the General Court noted, in paragraph 97 of the third judgment under appeal, that in order to establish that BPC supported the Lukashenko regime, ‘the Council [had] not [relied] solely on the fact that [BPC] complied with its obligation to pay t …", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "134", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "Consequently, the complaint that the General Court incorrectly found that the mere fact that BPC satisfied its statutory obligation to pay taxes was sufficient to establish that it supported the Lukashenko regime is clearly based on a misreading of the third judgment under appeal in three respects. …", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "135", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "Second, in so far as BPC submits that, in paragraph 95 of the third judgment under appeal, the General Court incorrectly held that the mere possibility that BPC might pay dividends to the Lukashenko regime constituted financial support to that regime, without establishing that such payments actually occurred, that part is again based on a misreading of that judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "136", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "It should be pointed out that the General Court referred to the possibility that dividends might be paid only after it had observed, again in paragraph 95, that 90% of the shares in BPC were held by public entities, 48% of which by Belaruskali, which was itself a State-owned undertaking. That observ …", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "137", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "In those specific circumstances, the General Court did not err in finding, in paragraph 105 of the third judgment under appeal, that BPC was a source of revenue for the Lukashenko regime and thereby supported that regime, irrespective of whether, in that connection, those revenues were ultimately re …", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "138", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "It follows that BPC’s arguments, set out in paragraph 132 of the present judgment, must also be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "139", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing considerations, the second part of the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P and, accordingly, those grounds in their entirety, along with the first, second, third, fourth and fifth parts of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "The second grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "140", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "By their respective second grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P, Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty dispute, in essence, the General Court’s interpretation, in the first and second judgments under appeal, of criterion (a) and, in particular, the concepts of ‘repression’ and ‘civil society’.", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "141", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "They submit, first, that the concept of ‘civil society’ includes only NGOs with formal statutes, thereby excluding individual workers on strike or an informal strike committee. The Council failed, it is submitted, to identify civil society organisations against which Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty comm …", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "142", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "The Council, supported by the Republic of Lithuania, disputes those arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "143", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "Given that, as is clear from paragraph 139 of the present judgment, the first grounds of appeal in Cases C‑816/24 P and C‑817/24 P must be rejected in their entirety, the respective second grounds raised by Belaruskali and Mr Golovaty in those cases, each claiming that the General Court erred in its …", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "The first ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "144", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "In support of its first ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, BPC submits that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 32 to 36 of the third judgment under appeal, in its assessment of the scope of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU.", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "145", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "In that connection, BPC argues that the Council simply reiterated, ‘ en bloc ’, a collection of reasons intended to justify BPC’s inclusion on the lists in question on the basis of criterion (b), whereas that criterion comprises two separate listing criteria, namely that relating to ‘benefiting’ fro …", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "146", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "The Council, supported by the Republic of Lithuania, disputes BPC’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "147", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "It should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an act adversely affecting an individual is based, which is a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, is, first, to provide the person concerned with su …", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "148", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "In that case, the General Court found, in essence, that the grounds for including BPC on the lists in question, on which the Council relied on the basis of criterion (b), as recalled in paragraph 17 of the present judgment, enabled BPC readily to understand the criteria on which its inclusion on those lists was based, and that they therefore constituted a sufficient statement of reasons in support of that inclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "149", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "No criticism can be made of that assessment, in so far as, while that statement of reasons makes no express distinction between the grounds depending on whether they seek to demonstrate that the person concerned ‘benefits’ from or ‘supports’ the Lukashenko regime, it is nevertheless clear that, in t …", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "150", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the General Court’s assessments set out in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the third judgment under appeal, according to which, in essence, the Council was not required, in the case at hand, to make such a distinction in order to comply with its obligation to state reasons.", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "151", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "The first ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P must therefore be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "The second part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "152", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "By way of the second part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, BPC submits that the General Court erred in law in the context of its review, conducted in paragraphs 109 to 112 of the third judgment under appeal, of the proportionality of the restrictive measures taken against BPC.", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "153", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "In that connection, BPC maintains, first of all, that the General Court erred in holding that the Council has ‘a broad discretion’ in the field of the common foreign and security policy, which includes restrictive measures.", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "154", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "Next, BPC submits that the General Court erred in finding that it had failed to produce specific evidence in support of its line of argument that the application of the restrictive measures taken against it infringed the principle of proportionality, and all the more so given that this amounts to a …", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "155", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "Lastly, the General Court failed, in BPC’s submission, to examine, in its assessment of compliance with that principle, the question whether the objective pursued by the restrictive measures taken against BPC could have been attained by other, less restrictive measures. BPC argues that that objective had already been broadly attained through the measure for the freezing of assets, to which Belaruskali was subject.", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "156", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "Consequently, had the General Court correctly applied the criterion of proportionality, it would have found that the restrictive measures taken against BPC were manifestly disproportionate by comparison with the intended objective, by disproportionately affecting global trade in fertilisers, which is widely recognised as being an essential sector of the global economy and, in particular, of the economy of African and other developing countries.", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "157", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "The Council, supported by the Republic of Lithuania, disputes the merits of BPC’s arguments.", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "158", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "It should be recalled that the Court of Justice has recognised that the Council has broad discretion when establishing a restrictive measures regime forming part of the common foreign and security policy of the European Union, which involves political, economic and social choices on its part and in …", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "159", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "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, it is necessary to ascertain, first, whether those measures or rules meet an objective of gener …", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "160", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "In the present case, as has also been noted in paragraph 27 of the present judgment, it is clear from paragraph 58 of the third judgment under appeal that the objective pursued by the restrictive measures enacted by the initial acts at issue consists in increasing the pressure exerted on the regime …", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "161", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "That objective is legitimate for the purposes of the European Union’s common foreign and security policy; this has not been challenged, moreover, either before the General Court or in the present appeals.", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "162", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "As is clear from paragraph 111 of the third judgment under appeal, BPC essentially claimed, before the General Court, that the restrictive measures enacted by the initial acts at issue were disproportionate in the light of their negative impact on third countries, Belarus and BPC itself. In its appe …", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "163", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "It is, however, clear, first, that pursuant to the case-law of the Court of Justice recalled in paragraphs 158 and 159 of the present judgment, it is only where such measures are manifestly inappropriate and, in particular, where they manifestly go beyond what is necessary to achieve such an objecti …", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "164", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "Second, with a view to establishing that the restrictive measures to which it is subject are inappropriate, BPC failed before the General Court to give examples of measures which would be less restrictive but equally effective in achieving that objective, and which the Council could have adopted (se …", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "165", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "As regards, furthermore, the argument put forward by BPC that it would have been sufficient, for the purposes of the objective pursued by the restrictive measures enacted by the initial acts at issue, to impose such measures solely on Belaruskali, without it being necessary that BPC also be subject …", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "166", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "In those circumstances, the General Court neither erred nor reversed the burden of proof by holding, in essence, in paragraph 111 of the third judgment under appeal, that BPC’s line of argument alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality was not sufficiently substantiated.", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "167", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing considerations, the second part of the second ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P and, accordingly, that ground of appeal in its entirety, must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "The sixth part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "168", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "By way of the sixth part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P, BPC essentially submits that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 102 of the third judgment under appeal, by raising, on its own initiative, a new legal argument on which the Council had not relied in the acts at issu …", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "169", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "The Council, supported by the Republic of Lithuania, disputes the merits of BPC’s line of argument, by emphasising that the General Court merely examined the links between BPC and Belaruskali. In any event, the reference to possible circumvention is not such as to alter the findings made by the General Court, as such circumvention is not required for the purposes of criterion (b).", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "170", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "It should be observed that, in paragraph 102 of the third judgment under appeal, against which the present part of the third ground of appeal is directed, the General Court held that ‘moreover, although Belaruskali’s funds were frozen, there is a not insignificant danger that that company may exert …", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "171", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "In that connection, and as the Council points out and as BPC itself acknowledges, such a consideration in fact bears no relation to the application of criterion (b), with the result that it is in no way needed in order to reach the conclusion that BPC falls within the scope of that criterion.", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "172", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "According to settled case-law, complaints directed against grounds included in a decision of the General Court for the sake of completeness are ineffective since they cannot lead to the decision being set aside (judgment of 3 July 2025, Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council, C‑326/24 P , EU:C:2025:522 , paragraph  59 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "173", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "In the light of the foregoing considerations, the sixth part of the third ground of appeal in Case C‑818/24 P and, accordingly, that ground of appeal in its entirety, must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "174", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "In the light of all of the foregoing, the appeals in Joined Cases C‑816/24 P, C‑817/24 P and C‑818/24 P must be dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "175", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "Pursuant to Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, 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_471" }, { "text": "176", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "Since the Council applied for the three 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_473" }, { "text": "177", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "Under Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, 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 Republic of Lithuania, intervener in the appeal in the three joined cases, is to bear its own costs in those cases.", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby:", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "1.", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "Joins Cases C‑816/24 P, C‑817/24 P and C‑818/24 P for the purposes of the judgment;", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "2.", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "Dismisses the appeals;", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "3.", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "Orders Belaruskali AAT, Mr Ivan Ivanovich Golovaty and Belarusian Potash Company AAT 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_482" }, { "text": "4.", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs in the three cases.", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "Passer", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "Regan", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "Smulders", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 June 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "A. Calot Escobar", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "Registrar", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "J. Passer", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "President of the Chamber", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "(\n *1\n ) Language of the case: English.", "paragraph_id": "para_493" } ], "word_count": 16943, "cites": [ "C-816/24", "C-817/24", "C-818/24", "T-528/22", "T-521/22", "T-534/22", "C-352/24", "C-54/20", "C-680/22", "C-541/20", "C-555/20", "C-703/23", "C-570/19", "C-248/17", "C-588/17", "C-326/24", "C-702/23", "C-696/23", "C-704/23", "C-711/23", "C-35/24", "C-111/24", "C-128/22", "C-729/18", "C-369/09" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "d3900d1eda51707d515362dbf73bb26fc1b87d6de539d94e1eae213a2e5932cf", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0816.ENG.xhtml.ECR_62024CJ0816_EN_01.html", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T20:53:51.409+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/62024cj0816", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:62024cj0816", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:62024cj0816", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:62024cj0816" }, "hash": "sha256:51cfa306925363b4f009c3ab777aa679f1c038953259b56913e5cf85cb2eefe1", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-10+legal-2026-10-10+2026-10-10T17:33:01", "content_hash": "sha256:51cfa306925363b4f009c3ab777aa679f1c038953259b56913e5cf85cb2eefe1", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T19:37:20.997Z", "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:62024cj0816", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:62024cj0816" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:62024cj0816" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:62024cj0816" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "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" }