{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-39-25-p", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-39-25-p)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-14", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:f8b9a4", "proof": "sha256:6c7b1e805e1724616b273bcbd9b2ae94e6393b12feaaf46d2bc010c10ec4e482", "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:c-39-25-p", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17" ], "kind": "front_matter" }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_18", "para_19" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "I.       Legal context", "paragraphs": [ "para_20" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "A.       Regulation No 765/2006", "paragraphs": [ "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "II.     Background to the dispute", "paragraphs": [ "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76" ], "kind": "facts" }, { "title": "III.  The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal", "paragraphs": [ "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92" ], "kind": "facts" }, { "title": "A.       Admissibility of the appeal", "paragraphs": [ "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "B.       Substance", "paragraphs": [ "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "VI.     Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_230", "para_231", "para_232" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:", "paragraphs": [ "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244" ], "kind": "operative" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "16 July 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "( Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus – Decision 2012/642/CFSP – Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 – Freezing of funds – Restriction on admission to and transit through the territory of the European Union – Inclusion and maintenanc …", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "In Case C‑39/25 P,", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 22 January 2025,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Bogoljub Karić, residing in Belgrade (Serbia), represented by A. Bass, A. Beauchemin, W. Julié, and T. Marembert, avocats,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "the other party to the proceedings being:", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Council of the European Union, represented by L. Berger and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "defendant at first instance,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "composed of I. Ziemele, President of the Chamber, F. Biltgen (Rapporteur), President of the First Chamber, acting as Judge of the Sixth Chamber, and S. Gervasoni, Judge,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Advocate General: A. Biondi,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "1         By his appeal, Mr Bogoljub Karić asks that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 November 2024, Karić v Council (T‑520/22, EU:T:2024:774; ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking annulment of …", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "I.       Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "A.       Regulation No 765/2006", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "2         Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 (OJ 2022 L 67, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 765/2006’), provides, in paragraphs 1 and 5 thereof:", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "‘1.      All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I shall be frozen.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "5.      Annex I shall also consist of a list of the natural or legal persons, entities and bodies who, in accordance with point (b) of Article 4(1) of [Council] Decision 2012/642/CFSP [of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belar …", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "3         Article 8a(4) of that regulation provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "‘The lists in Annex I shall be reviewed in regular intervals and at least every 12 months.’", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "B.       Decision 2012/642", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "4         Article 3(1) of Decision 2012/642 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of persons:", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "(b)      benefit from or support the [regime of President Lukashenko].", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "5         Under Article 4(1) of that decision:", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "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_35" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "(b)      natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefiting from or supporting the [regime of President Lukashenko];", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "6         Article 8 of that decision provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "‘…", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "2.      This Decision shall be kept under constant review and shall be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "C.       Implementing Decision 2022/881", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "7         Article 1 of Implementing Decision 2022/881 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "‘Annex I to Decision 2012/642/CFSP is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.’", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "8         Point 1 of Annex I to Decision 2012/642, in the version resulting from Implementing Decision 2022/881, identifies the appellant as a ‘Serbian businessman and politician, associated with the company Dana Holdings’ and justifies the restrictive measures against the appellant by reference to the following grounds:", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "‘[The appellant] is a Serbian businessperson and politician. Together with his family members, he developed a network of real estate companies in Belarus and has cultivated a network of contacts with the family of [President Lukashenko].", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "In particular, he has been closely associated with Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary Dana Astra, and he reportedly represented those entities during meetings with [President Lukashenko].", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "The Minsk World project, which was developed by a company associated with [the appellant], was described by [President Lukashenko] as “an example of cooperation of the Slavonic world”.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "Thanks to those close relationships with [President Lukashenko] and his entourage, companies associated with Karić received preferential treatment from the [regime of President Lukashenko], including tax breaks and plots of land for real estate development.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "He is therefore benefitting from and supporting the [regime of President Lukashenko].’", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "D.       Implementing Regulation 2022/876", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "9         Article 1 of Implementing Regulation 2022/876 is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "‘Annex I to Regulation [No 765/2006] is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.’", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "10       Point 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 765/2006, in the version resulting from Implementing Regulation 2022/876, also identifies the appellant as a ‘Serbian businessman and politician, associated with the company Dana Holdings’ and justifies the restrictive measures against the appellant by reference to the same grounds as those set out in Point 1 of Annex I to Decision 2012/642, in the version resulting from Implementing Decision 2022/881.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "E.       Decision 2023/421", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "11       Article 1 of Decision 2023/421 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "‘Decision [2012/642] is amended as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "(2)      Annex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.’", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "12       In accordance with Point 1 of the Annex to Decision 2023/421, the reference to the appellant’s name on the list under Point 1 of Annex I to Decision 2012/642, in the version resulting from Implementing Decision 2022/881, remained unaltered.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "F.       Implementing Regulation 2023/419", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "13       Article 1 of Implementing Regulation 2023/419 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "‘Annex I to Regulation [No 765/2006] is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.’", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "14       In accordance with Point 1 of the Annex to Implementing Regulation 2023/419, the reference to the appellant’s name on the list under Point 1 of Annex I to Regulation No 765/2006, in the version resulting from Implementing Regulation 2022/876, was not the subject of any amendments.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "II.     Background to the dispute", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "15       The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 2 to 15 of the judgment under appeal. For the purposes of the present proceedings, it may be summarised as follows.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "16       On 18 May 2006, the Council adopted, under Articles 60 and 301 EC (now Articles 75 and 215 TFEU), Regulation No 765/2006 and, on 15 October 2012, under Article 29 TEU, Decision 2012/642.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "17       The restrictive measures taken against the appellant, who is a Serbian businessperson and politician, were adopted by the Council pursuant to the criterion of benefiting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko (‘the general criterion at issue’), laid down, first, in Article 3(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 and, second, in Article 4(1)(b) of that decision and Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "18       By the initial acts, the appellant’s name was included on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures set out in the annex to Decision 2012/642 and in Annex I to Regulation No 765/2006 (together, ‘the lists in question’).", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "19       By letter of 15 June 2022, the appellant requested that the Council communicate to him all the evidence supporting the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "20       On 30 June 2022, the Council provided the appellant with a number of documents, including document WK 5817/2022 INIT and document WK 5817/2022 ADD 1, containing the evidence concerning him.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "21       By letter of 21 December 2022, the Council notified the appellant of its intention to maintain the restrictive measures against him and sent additional evidence to him. The Council also gave the appellant the opportunity to submit observations by 12 January 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "22       By letter of 11 January 2023, the appellant challenged the grounds for maintaining his name on the lists at issue and requested that the Council reconsider its decision.", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "23       On 24 February 2023, the Council adopted the maintaining acts, by way of which the restrictive measures against the appellant were extended to 28 February 2024. In those acts, the Council justified the extension of those measures by reproducing all of the grounds contained in the initial acts.", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "24       By letter of 27 February 2023, the Council replied to the appellant’s letter of 11 January 2023, and informed him of its decision to maintain his name on the lists at issue by way of the maintaining acts.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "III.  The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "25       By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 28 August 2022, the appellant, who was the applicant at first instance, brought an action for annulment of the initial acts, in so far as they concern him.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "26       By way of a procedural document lodged at the Court Registry on 9 May 2023, the appellant amended the form of order sought so that it also covered the maintaining acts in so far as those acts concern him.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "27       In support of his action before the General Court, the appellant relied on three pleas in law alleging (i) infringement of the rights of the defence, (ii) manifest errors of assessment and (iii) disproportionate interference with his fundamental rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "28       By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "IV.     Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "29       The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "–        set aside the judgment under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "–        give judgment on the merits and annul the acts at issue in so far as they concern him;", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "–        in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "–        order the Council to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "30       The Council contends that the Court of Justice should:", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "–        dismiss the appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "–        in the alternative, should the Court decide to set aside the judgment under appeal and give final judgment itself, dismiss the application for annulment of the acts at issue; and", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "–        order the appellant to pay the costs relating to the present appeal and the action at first instance.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "V.       The appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "A.       Admissibility of the appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "1.       Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "31       The Council submits that the appeal is inadmissible in its entirety, inasmuch as it lacks clarity. Certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellant overlap in part and the appeal fails to identify with sufficient accuracy the arguments relied upon in support of the grounds of appeal, with the result that it is difficult, in the Council’s submission, to determine the exact scope of each of the grounds raised.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "32       The appellant contends that, contrary to the Council’s claims, the scope of each of the grounds he has raised is clear from the appeal and the specific paragraphs of the judgment under appeal to which reference is made. He submits, moreover, that those grounds of appeal do not overlap.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "2.       Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "33       It should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by a …", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "34       An appeal supported by an argument that is not sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Court to exercise its powers of judicial review, in particular because essential elements on which the line of argument is based are not indicated sufficiently coherently and intelligibly in the text …", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "35       In the present case, the appeal identifies precisely the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal which are disputed, and sets out the grounds on which, in the appellant’s submission, those paragraphs are vitiated by errors of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "36       Consequently, the Council’s arguments cannot call into question the admissibility of the appeal in its entirety.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "B.       Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "37       The appellant raises six grounds in support of his appeal, alleging (i) error of law on the part of the General Court in the interpretation and application of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 and of Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006; (ii) error of law and infrin …", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "1.       The first ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "(a)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "38       By his first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, and of Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006, which relate to the general criterion at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "39       The appellant maintains that, in paragraph 31 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that his name was not included and, subsequently, maintained on the lists in question on the ground that the companies with which he was associated were already included on the lists at issu …", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "40       In the appellant’s submission, such an extension of the general criterion at issue cannot be accepted since, at the time of the acts at issue, the Council had expressly limited the association criterion to persons associated with persons, entities or bodies responsible for serious violation …", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "41       The appellant argues that such an extension is, moreover, contrary to the settled case-law of the General Court, under which the general criterion at issue applies only qualitatively or quantitatively significant support for the regime in question (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 July …", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "42       The appellant thus maintains that, in the present case, he was wrongly sanctioned on the ground that he was closely associated with two companies which benefited from and supported the regime of President Lukashenko. The appellant argues that the General Court only referred, in paragraphs 4 …", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "43       The Council contends that the first ground of appeal must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "(b)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "44       The general criterion at issue is laid down in Article 3(1)(b) and Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, and in Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "45       Pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, persons who benefit from or support the regime of President Lukashenko are to be subject to a prohibition on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "46       Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, to which Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006 refers, provides for the freezing of all funds and economic resources of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefitting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko, and of legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by them.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "47       It should be observed that, under the guise of an alleged wrongful extension of the general criterion at issue by the General Court, the appellant seeks, in actual fact, to call into question the finding, made by the General Court in paragraph 118 of the judgment under appeal, that the appe …", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "48       However, in paragraph 118 of that judgment, the General Court arrived at its finding that the appellant satisfied the general criterion at issue not only on the ground that such common interests existed, but also on account of his involvement, as a businessperson, both in establishing and maintaining a close relationship with President Lukashenko and in conducting the Minsk World project.", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "49       In that regard, the General Court admittedly held, in paragraphs 79 and 110 of that judgment, that the items of evidence produced by the Council did not show that the appellant was the shareholder or officially the director of Dana Holdings or of its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, at t …", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "50       It is on the basis of those findings that the General Court ruled, in paragraph 115 of the judgment under appeal, that all of those factors constitute a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence allowing it to be found that it is on account of the close relationships be …", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "51       Moreover, the General Court pointed out, in paragraphs 116 and 117 of the judgment under appeal, that it is clear from recital 6 of Decision 2012/642 that the concept of ‘support to the regime’ in terms of the general criterion at issue does not encompass only financial or material support …", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "52       It follows that, contrary to what the appellant maintains, the General Court did not apply a new association criterion but rather, in paragraphs 116 to 118 of the judgment under appeal, interpreted and applied the general criterion at issue without erring in law in that regard.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "53       Consequently, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "2.       The third ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "54       By his third ground of appeal, which is divided into three limbs and should be examined before the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted the evidence put before it. It is necessary, at the outset, to assess the second limb of that ground of appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "(a)     The second limb of the third ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "(1)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "55       By way of the second limb of his third ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that no common economic interests exist between himself, Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "56       The appellant submits that the General Court distorted the evidence by finding, in paragraphs 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 71 and 89 of the judgment under appeal, that he was the founder, co-owner and director of Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Dana Astra, as part of a larger entity, B …", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "57       He disputes the claim that he is the founder, co-owner and director of BK Group, Dana Astra or Dana Holdings, or any other company operating in Belarus. He also refutes the claim that he publicly and repeatedly conducted himself like the director or, at the very least, the representative of those companies or any other company operating in Belarus.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "58       The appellant adds that the General Court failed to take into consideration those items of evidence that he had produced before it, namely press articles dating from 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021, official certificates, and an excerpt from the entry in the Belarusian corporate register concerning Dana Astra, demonstrating that he was involved in the corporate structure of Dana Astra or Dana Holdings neither as a founder nor as an owner or director.", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "59       Furthermore, the appellant claims that the General Court relied on vague and contradictory evidence. He observes, in particular, that in paragraphs 65 to 67 and 114 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court distorted the evidence relating to the alleged discussions with President Luka …", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "60       As regards statements made to the press, the appellant submits that, in order to find that he had made statements in which he behaved as though he were the director of Dana Holdings and its subsidiaries or, at the very least, as a person authorised to represent those entities, the General C …", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "61       In so far as concerns social media publications, and more particular the reference to several posts on the appellant’s Instagram account, he claims that the General Court relied, in paragraph 68 of the judgment under appeal, on translated screenshots of an article published in 2019, at a ti …", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "62       In addition, the appellant criticises the General Court for holding, in paragraphs 57 and 69 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had claimed that at the end of 2020, Dana Holdings and its former subsidiary, Dana Astra, had been sold; their current owner was a company establishe …", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "63       The Council contends that the appellant has distorted the findings at which the General Court arrived, and consequently takes the view that the second limb of the third ground of appeal should be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "(2)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "64       It must be recalled that it is clear from Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union that an appeal is to be limited to points of law and that the General Court therefore has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appra …", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "65       In the present case, it should be noted that, under the guise of an allegation of distortion of evidence, the appellant, by essentially reproducing the same arguments as those he raised before the General Court, seeks in actual fact to obtain a fresh assessment of that evidence, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in an appeal, in accordance with the case-law recalled in paragraphs 33 and 65 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "66       In any event, it should be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, that distortion must be obvious from the documents in the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence (judgment of 3 April 2014, France v Commission , C‑559 …", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "67       In that connection, it is clear from paragraphs 64 to 83 of that judgment that the General Court carried out a detailed examination of the items of evidence produced by the Council, and inferred that that evidence demonstrated specifically, precisely and consistently that (i) the appellant …", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "68       As to the appellant’s argument alleging that the General Court failed to take into consideration several official documents demonstrating that the appellant plays no role and holds no interests in the companies Dana Astra and Dana Holdings, suffice it to observe that the General Court held, …", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "69       It follows that, although the General Court may not have taken into consideration certain official documents, such as excerpts from corporate registers or a certificate of incorporation, furnished by the appellant in order to demonstrate that he neither plays a role nor holds any interests …", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "70       It should be noted in that connection that the appellant does not challenge the substance of paragraphs 79 to 82 of the judgment under appeal. The General Court admittedly held, in paragraph 79 of that judgment, that the items of evidence produced by the Council did not show that the appell …", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "71       Furthermore, the General Court recalled, in paragraph 81 of the judgment under appeal, the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which proof of the merits of the grounds for listing and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue is assessed in the light of the context of …", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "72       It is on the basis of those findings, which the appellant does not call into question, that in paragraph 83 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that, in those circumstances, having regard to the context in Belarus, the items contained in the Council’s evidence files constit …", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "73       Consequently, the second limb of the third ground of appeal should be rejected as inadmissible in part and, in any case, as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "(b)     The first limb of the third ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "(1)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "74       By way of the first limb of his third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted evidence by finding, wrongly, in particular in paragraph 59 of the judgment under appeal, that Dana Astra and Dana Holdings were part of BK Group and that the latter was a legal entity.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "75       The appellant argues that the items of evidence on which the General Court relied in paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal, namely four press articles published online, referred to BK Group in a vague and contradictory manner, contained statements falsely attributed to the appellant and …", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "76       In that connection, the appellant submits, first, that Exhibit No 1 in document WK 5817/2022 INIT makes no mention of BK Group at any point, but vaguely refers to the ‘company Karić Brothers’ and, second, that Exhibit No 3 of document WK 5817/2022 INIT makes no mention of BK Group either, a …", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "77       The appellant recalls that, before the General Court, he maintained, as is clear from paragraph 47 of that judgment, that BK Group was not a legal person, but an abbreviation of the word combination ‘Braca Karić’, which, in Serbian, means the ‘Karić Brothers’, used by the media and also by …", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "78       Furthermore, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to take into consideration the numerous items of evidence that he had produced and which demonstrate that BK Group does not exist and that Dana Astra and Dana Holdings could not, therefore, be part of it. The appellant had, in …", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "79       In so far as concerns Dana Holdings, the appellant states that this is a company registered in Cyprus and directly owned by his children, as is clear from the official shareholders’ certificate for Dana Holdings Ltd (Cyprus), issued on 23 November 2020. Further to the sale, after December 2 …", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "80       As to Dana Astra, the appellant states that it was wholly held, until 4 December 2020, by its parent company, Dana Holdings, through two Cyprus companies, Rodrick Limited and Triworst Limited, as is demonstrated, in his submission, by several documents relating to the registration, in the B …", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "81       The appellant submits that, on 4 December 2020, Dana Holdings sold the entirety of the shares in all of its Cyprus subsidiaries, including the shares in Rodrick Limited and Triworst Limited. These Cyprus companies are now fully owned by Enterprise Development Holding Limited, a company in which the appellant plays no part and has no interest.", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "82       The Council takes the view that the first limb of the third ground of appeal must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "(2)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "83       It should be observed that, by way of the first limb of the third ground of appeal, the appellant challenges the findings of the General Court which led it to conclude that Dana Astra and Dana Holdings were part of BK Group and that the latter was a legal entity. However, in paragraph 64 of …", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "84       Consequently, the first limb of the third ground of appeal must be rejected as ineffective.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "(c)     The third limb of the third ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "(1)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "85       By way of the third limb of his third ground of appeal, the appellant disputes the claim that he maintained a network of contacts with President Lukashenko and his entourage, and submits that, in any event, there is no timeline or continuity of facts in that regard.", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "86       He claims that the General Court distorted the evidence and, in paragraphs 85, 86, 114 and 115 of the judgment under appeal, incorrectly qualified his relationship with President Lukashenko as a relationship involving close ties or a privileged relationship.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "87       The appellant observes that the only items of evidence that the General Court took into consideration were, in paragraphs 86, 88, 90 and 91 of that judgment, press articles, a report and a publication on the website of President Lukashenko, referring, first, to meetings in which the appella …", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "88       More specifically, the appellant maintains that, in paragraphs 86 and 90 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court relied on a press article from occrp.org which refers vaguely to the fact that the Karić brothers benefitted from their relationship with President Lukashenko, and claims …", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "89       The appellant also claims that, in paragraph 86 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court relied on a report relayed by the website belsat.eu, which includes a diagram allegedly linking the Karić family to President Lukashenko without, however, mentioning any specific source or refere …", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "90       According to the appellant, however, those items of evidence cannot suffice to establish the existence of close ties or a network of contacts between himself and President Lukashenko.", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "91       The appellant recalls that, according to the case-law of the General Court, a link as indirect as the alleged involvement of the daughter-in-law of President Lukashenko in Dana Astra is not sufficient to establish that a person is benefiting from or supports the regime (see, to that effect, …", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "92       Accordingly, in the appellant’s submission, the General Court wrongly found, in paragraphs 113 to 115 and 118 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant’s close or privileged relationship with President Lukashenko demonstrates that the appellant benefits from or supports the regime in Belarus.", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "93       The Council takes the view that the third limb of the third ground of appeal must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "(2)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "94       In the present case, it should be noted at the outset that, under the guise of an allegation of distortion of evidence, the appellant, by essentially reproducing the same arguments as those he raised before the General Court, seeks in actual fact to obtain a fresh assessment of that evidence, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in an appeal, in accordance with the case-law recalled in paragraphs 33 and 64 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "95       In any event, it is clear from paragraphs 85 to 92 of the judgment under appeal that the General Court carried out a detailed examination of the evidence produced by the Council, seeking to demonstrate the continuous existence for several years of close ties between, on the one hand, the appellant and his family members, in particular his brother; and, on the other hand, President Lukashenko. However, it is not obvious that the General Court distorted that evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "96       Furthermore, it is clear from the examination of the first ground of appeal that the General Court rightly found that the factors set out in paragraphs 111 to 117 of the judgment under appeal, which included the close ties between the appellant, his family and President Lukashenko, justifie …", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "97       Consequently, the third limb of the third ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded and, accordingly, the third ground of appeal must be rejected in its entirety.", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "3.       The second ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "(a)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "98       By way of his second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to distinguish, throughout the judgment under appeal, between the two aspects of the general criterion at issue, namely, on the one hand, the alleged benefit from and, on the other hand, the support allegedly provided to, the regime of President Lukashenko.", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "99       In the appellant’s submission, it is apparent from the case-law of the General Court that the concepts of ‘support’ and ‘benefit’ are separate criteria (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 2017, BelTechExport v Council , T‑765/15, EU:T:2017:669, paragraph 92). According to the app …", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "100     The appellant claims that, while the General Court expressly referred, in paragraph 37 of that judgment, to alleged support that he provided to President Lukashenko, its reasoning in that connection is contradictory in so far as the statements made by President Lukashenko himself, to which t …", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "101     Moreover, according to the appellant, the reference made by the General Court, in paragraphs 99 and 102 of the judgment under appeal, to the support provided by the regime of President Lukashenko to the undertakings linked to the appellant and involved in the development of the Minsk World p …", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "102     The Council takes the view that the second ground of appeal should be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "(b)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "103     It should be observed that the appellant’s line of argument is based on an incorrect reading of the judgment under appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "104     Contrary to what the appellant claims, the General Court did not fail to distinguish between, on the one hand, benefiting from and, on the other hand, supporting the regime, but it did find, in particular in the light of the context in Belarus and in the appellant’s case specifically, that t …", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "105     In any event, it is settled case-law that if the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned in the contested act is sufficiently detailed and specific, that it is substantiated and that it constitutes in itself a sufficient basis to support th …", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "106     Consequently, the second ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "4.       The fourth ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "(a)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "107     By his fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review and infringed Article 263 TFEU, essential procedural requirements and the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, by stating insufficient and contradictory reasons for the judgment under appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "108     The appellant recalls that, according to settled case-law, the Court of Justice and the General Court cannot substitute their own reasoning for that of the author of the contested act (see, to that effect, judgments of 28 February 2013, Portugal v Commission , C‑246/11 P, EU:C:2013:118, para …", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "109     The appellant submits that, in the case in point, the General Court wrongly substituted its own grounds for those of the Council, according to which he was closely linked to Dana Holdings and Dana Astra, by way of contradictory reasoning. He argues that, in the present case, in the wake of t …", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "110     The appellant submits that the General Court thus found, first, in paragraphs 59 to 63 of the judgment under appeal, that Dana Astra and Dana Holdings belonged to BK Group, of which he was allegedly the founder and principal owner and, second, in paragraphs 70 to 76 of that judgment, that he …", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "111     The Council takes the view that the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "(b)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "112     It should be borne in mind that it is clear from the examination of the first ground of appeal that the General Court did not confuse the general criterion at issue – which relates to benefiting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko – and the criterion relating to association with persons benefiting from or supporting that regime.", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "113     Furthermore, it should be noted that, in the grounds of the acts at issue, the Council did not base the inclusion or the maintenance of the appellant’s name on the lists in question solely on the existences of close ties between the appellant and Dana Holdings as well as Dana Astra. The Coun …", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "114     It follows that, contrary to the appellant’s claims, the General Court did not depart from the statement of reasons on which the Council relied and did not substitute its own reasons for those of the latter when it examined whether the facts referred to justified the inclusion and then the m …", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "115     Accordingly, the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "5.       The fifth ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "(a)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "116     By way of his fifth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by failing, in paragraphs 119 to 125 of the judgment under appeal, to take into account, first, the case-law on the passage of time and, second, the need to identify temporally relevant conduct justifying the adoption and maintenance of restrictive measures against the person concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "117     In particular, the appellant criticises the General Court for relying solely on the judgment of 12 February 2020, Boshab v Council (T‑171/18, EU:T:2020:55, paragraph 84), in order to justify its decision to uphold restrictive measures against him on the basis of past events, even though that …", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "118     In any case, the appellant maintains that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is for the Council to demonstrate that the reason for the initial listing is ongoing (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 April 2023, Council v El-Qaddafi , C‑413/21 P, EU:C:2023:306, paragraph 7 …", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "119     However, in the present case, the General Court failed to take into consideration the appellant’s specific situation in so far as concerns both the alleged network of contacts with President Lukashenko and his supposed ties with Dana Astra and Dana Holdings. The General Court made no referen …", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "120     Moreover, according to the appellant, the fact that his son remains the ultimate owner of Dana Holdings can neither establish the existence of a common interest between the appellant and that company nor call into question the change of ownership which took place in December 2020. In that co …", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "121     The appellant adds that, by finding, in paragraph 122 of the judgment under appeal, that the Council could rely exclusively on factual allegations relating to a period predating the adoption of the acts at issue, the General Court disregarded the case-law according to which, in relying on st …", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "122     Furthermore, the appellant takes the view that, even if the Council were able to rely on past facts or events, that is possible only in so far as that information or those factors contribute to establishing that, despite the passage of time, the person concerned satisfied the listing criteri …", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "123     The Council takes the view that the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "(b)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "124     It should be noted that, in paragraphs 119 to 124 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court examined the relevance of the facts on which the acts at issue are based.", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "125     The General Court recalled, in paragraph 120 of that judgment, its own settled case-law according to which the reference, in the grounds of the acts at issue, to facts that occurred before the adoption of those acts, does not necessary mean that the restrictive measures taken against an appl …", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "126     The General Court stated, in paragraph 121 of that judgment, that that interpretation is supported by Article 8 of Decision 2012/642, under which that decision is to be kept under constant review and is to be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have n …", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "127     It is in the light of those findings that the General Court held, in paragraph 122 of the judgment under appeal, that the Council had, admittedly, taken into consideration factual elements that dated back to the mid-2000s when the relationship between, on the one hand, the appellant and his …", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "128     It follows that, contrary to what the appellant submits, the General Court did not err in law in applying the principles governing the passage of time.", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "129     Consequently, the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "6.       The sixth ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "(a)     Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "130     By his sixth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in that it stated insufficient reasons for the judgment under appeal, disregarded the scope of its judicial review and, accordingly, infringed the general criterion at issue, essential procedural requirements and the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as Article 263 TFEU.", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "131     The appellant observes that, in order to assess whether the companies with which he was allegedly linked enjoyed preferential treatment from the regime of President Lukashenko, in the form, inter alia, of tax breaks or free construction plots for real estate development, the General Court followed a two-pronged line of reasoning in paragraphs 93 to 106 of the judgment under appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "132     The appellant submits that the General Court, having recalled, in paragraphs 95 to 98 of that judgment, the supposed importance of the Minsk World project to the regime of President Lukashenko, relied (i) in paragraphs 101 and 102 of that judgment, on two public statements made by President …", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "133     As regards the alleged preferential tax treatment, the appellant recalls that, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU and the settled case-law of the General Court, the lawfulness of the acts at issue can only be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law on which they were adopte …", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "134     The appellant submits that, in the present case, the grounds of the judgment under appeal, whereby the companies linked to the appellant received preferential treatment from the Belarusian authorities, are based primarily on material not contained in the Council’s file; the General Court sim …", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "135     The Council takes the view that the sixth ground of appeal must be rejected.", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "(b)     Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "136     It should be observed that, by way of his line of argument alleging error of law on the part of the General Court, in that it disregarded the general criterion at issue and the obligation to state reasons, the appellant seeks, in actual fact, to call into question the assessment of the facts …", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "137     Consequently, the sixth ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "138     Since none of the grounds of appeal has been successful, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "VI.     Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "139     Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies 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_231" }, { "text": "140     In the present case, since the Council has applied for costs and the appellant has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "1.       Dismisses the appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "2.       Orders Mr Bogoljub Karić to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "Ziemele", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "Biltgen", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "Gervasoni", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 July 2026.", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "A. Calot Escobar", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "I. Ziemele", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "Registrar", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "President of the Chamber", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: English.", "paragraph_id": "para_244" } ], "operative_part": "On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:\n\n1.       Dismisses the appeal;\n\n2.       Orders Mr Bogoljub Karić to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.", "word_count": 12787, "cites": [ "C-39/25", "T-520/22", "C-242/21", "C-602/22", "T-578/12", "T-262/15", "T-741/22", "T-58/12", "T-252/22", "T-309/22", "T-739/22", "T-239/21", "C-635/24", "C-559/12", "C-630/13", "T-301/22", "T-283/22", "T-765/15", "C-248/17", "C-246/11", "C-51/19", "C-64/19", "C-456/18", "T-171/18", "C-376/10", "T-744/22", "C-413/21", "T-743/22", "T-363/22", "C-271/24", "T-42/12", "T-181/12", "T-540/19" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "4c5546cc788bb6f0ab5cf681bb57987031f67407727fdf25909f1abdfc58f4d6", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CJ0039", "fetched_at": "2026-09-28T06:29:40.471+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-39-25-p", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-39-25-p", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-39-25-p", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-39-25-p", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "4c5546cc788bb6f0ab5cf681bb57987031f67407727fdf25909f1abdfc58f4d6", "recomputed_sha256": "4c5546cc788bb6f0ab5cf681bb57987031f67407727fdf25909f1abdfc58f4d6", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-14T06:31:07.874Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:6c7b1e805e1724616b273bcbd9b2ae94e6393b12feaaf46d2bc010c10ec4e482", "version": "legal-2026-10-14", "expires": "2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T06:24:22", "content_hash": "sha256:6c7b1e805e1724616b273bcbd9b2ae94e6393b12feaaf46d2bc010c10ec4e482", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-14T07:31:09.012Z", "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:c-39-25-p", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-39-25-p" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-39-25-p" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-39-25-p" }, { "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" }