{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-31","fingerprint":"ewai:se:6fcb0e","proof":"sha256:8718d9d1cf69159e86ad03fc8a86e192eaf2db0fd7d26a04e73b1d0980107119","jurisdiction":"se","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","object_type":"edge","object_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696","schema_version":"1","schema":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/schemas/edge","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696","judgment":{"id":"eu:62023cj0696","text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62023cj0696"},"siblings":{"risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/risk/eu:62023cj0696","relation":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/relation/eu:62023cj0696","change":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/change/eu:62023cj0696","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/agent/eu:62023cj0696","provenance":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/provenance/eu:62023cj0696","status":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/status/eu:62023cj0696","precedent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:62023cj0696","element":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/element/eu:62023cj0696","decision":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/decision/eu:62023cj0696","weight":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/weight/eu:62023cj0696","conflict":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/conflict/eu:62023cj0696","citation_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/citation_graph/eu:62023cj0696"},"source":"NovaCopilot","precedent_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/precedent-graph/eu:62023cj0696","item":{"judgment":"eu:62023cj0696","outgoing":[{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-130-10","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-130/10","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_842"],"excerpt":"In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as the General Court correctly noted in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, Article 215(2) TFEU provides for the possibility that the Council may adopt restrictive measures not only against the leaders of a third country and the persons or ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"b760f58ae271be2fe7e5a3e27227a495e8a34bbf1baf3ab310042de2f60b0810"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-152-18","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-152/18","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_783"],"excerpt":"First of all, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, arguments directed against grounds included in a decision of the General Court purely for the sake of completeness cannot lead to the decision being set aside and are therefore ineffective (judgment of 2 October 2019, Créd","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"04348e7e668b289803b61fb63885ec01d754dff9e75272a43495da0316e5e513"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-152-19","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-152/19","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_605"],"excerpt":"When the General Court has found or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 256 TFEU to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the General Court and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 March 2021, Deutsche Te","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"f50ecee856f822f3ecc1dc34b075168301d712374dc3fa2468650ae48896c075"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-153-18","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-153/18","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_783"],"excerpt":"First of all, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, arguments directed against grounds included in a decision of the General Court purely for the sake of completeness cannot lead to the decision being set aside and are therefore ineffective (judgment of 2 October 2019, Créd","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"fe45a6d3c07e8d9aec6a188f6ef1c382132eb97c5c351ca74d2e2800fd6d3bc7"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-204-00","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-204/00","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_970"],"excerpt":"That appellant is in reality criticising the General Court for disregarding the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments of fact and reasoning for those of the Council, which is a question of law that can be subject to review by the Court on appeal (see, to that effect, judgm","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"7eacfbe8bfa06e5a78722c96388835f5aa533236ce9004edc5809984dd1fa79d"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-205-00","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-205/00","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_970"],"excerpt":"That appellant is in reality criticising the General Court for disregarding the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments of fact and reasoning for those of the Council, which is a question of law that can be subject to review by the Court on appeal (see, to that effect, judgm","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"83abbd75c4ff847464e92a8828fb548e998d3a22d3f9b7a6faf1eb0354a12661"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-211-00","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-211/00","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_970"],"excerpt":"That appellant is in reality criticising the General Court for disregarding the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments of fact and reasoning for those of the Council, which is a question of law that can be subject to review by the Court on appeal (see, to that effect, judgm","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"599f6e1559b34e42c15d635a2526ffacf866b2752fb3e09cf85c01cb0701a15c"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-213-00","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-213/00","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_970"],"excerpt":"That appellant is in reality criticising the General Court for disregarding the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments of fact and reasoning for those of the Council, which is a question of law that can be subject to review by the Court on appeal (see, to that effect, judgm","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"37394950ea076e049041f2982786fb701be3d185beb6ab682df4835b224cffd1"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-217-00","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-217/00","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_970"],"excerpt":"That appellant is in reality criticising the General Court for disregarding the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments of fact and reasoning for those of the Council, which is a question of law that can be subject to review by the Court on appeal (see, to that effect, judgm","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"a675bdfc2fa811a8d14ac88e67bf90071359ec7856b2ba79535c74775aa98dfa"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-219-00","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-219/00","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_970"],"excerpt":"That appellant is in reality criticising the General Court for disregarding the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments of fact and reasoning for those of the Council, which is a question of law that can be subject to review by the Court on appeal (see, to that effect, judgm","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"0bdc20414e524f50fe999e16a3c891fcd7b56a2e3d8144f8a00588100cda88d0"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-225-17","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-225/17","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_760","para_766","para_772","para_852","para_856"],"excerpt":"In that context, the case-law referred to in paragraphs 229 and 230 of the present judgment is also applicable for the purposes of determining whether or not the interference with fundamental rights that restrictive measures entail for the person concerned is proportionate (see, to that effect, judg","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"fa88bdb2f04914fb8ca0de74472afab419000a5fe4948712a87b6791df974554"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-241-19","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-241/19","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_760","para_762","para_766"],"excerpt":"It also stated that, even where it has broad discretion, the Council must base its choice on objective criteria and examine whether the aims pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain operators (see, to that effect, judgments of 2","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"b52439ed937161c5b3bac7ad0878d036b242441d8be72c2d3b01fc4d62f26088"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-248-17","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-248/17","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1151","para_1219","para_1239"],"excerpt":"Last, provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the General Court alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence pu","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"211ae83810f48dd78208d73b041d17281bbf6578caf9f0025ef957598c19d90a"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-271-24","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-271/24","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_520","para_603","para_1092"],"excerpt":"The EU legislature also progressively extended the scope of certain existing criteria so that it could impose restrictive measures on an increasingly wide circle of persons, entities or bodies (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 March 2025, Shuvalov v Council, C-271/24 P , EU:C:2025:180 , paragraph","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"1bd3c374762c8d7c452f1ca10310fe1ac37a0ed3f010aa258bc429405bf9199c"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-291-98","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-291/98","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_613"],"excerpt":"Since those criticisms also concern the interpretation implicitly adopted by the General Court, in that context, of the concept of‘influence’ within the meaning of the (g) criterion, it should be recalled that whether or not the General Court misinterpreted an EU act is a question of law which can b","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"eb68e621ce874894a4bb2d010d5aad953f769d9661dc871a662e8ec3b92206fb"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-348-12","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-348/12","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_762","para_764","para_768","para_772","para_1219"],"excerpt":"It also stated that, even where it has broad discretion, the Council must base its choice on objective criteria and examine whether the aims pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain operators (see, to that effect, judgments of 2","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"827a19c4e29138a21105d31a951874478451d0a0837efeba29684b4614d62fae"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-348-20","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-348/20","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1149","para_1162"],"excerpt":"Next, an alleged infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of the corollaries of that right, the principle of equality of arms and the principle of audi alteram partem , which the General Court must uphold in procedures brought before it, is a question of law that falls within the jurisdiction","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"3291da4581eb4cd77d5ca18152180872c6545e347125175b057f6c116bf08cce"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-35-24","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-35/24","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_9","para_18","para_27","para_35","para_38","para_46","para_66","para_74","para_77","para_79","para_86","para_104"],"excerpt":"In accordance with those provisions, the Czech Republic and the Commission, interveners on appeal in Case C-35/24 P, and the Republic of Latvia, intervener at first instance and which participated in the proceedings before the Court in that case, are to bear their own costs in Case C-35/24 P.","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"ae8fa27db82d73459b3d6269e141dd17b226b424b839f3703546b7f61e4e0293"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-368-20","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-368/20","id":"eu:c-368-20-62020cj0368","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-368-20-62020cj0368"},"paragraph_ids":["para_480"],"excerpt":"In that regard, it needs to be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, it is necessary, when interpreting a provision of EU law, to consider not only its wording but also its context and the objectives of the legislation of which it forms part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 2","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"40d7a6c5448c66aaac595b62c317c7119cd0243ba73f51fcff012f8fcf208ded"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-369-20","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-369/20","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_480"],"excerpt":"In that regard, it needs to be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, it is necessary, when interpreting a provision of EU law, to consider not only its wording but also its context and the objectives of the legislation of which it forms part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 2","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"3892459a5cf176528726ea3e6cc9168395d76474e9192273cd57a759595f822a"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-376-10","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-376/10","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_831","para_842"],"excerpt":"In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as the General Court correctly noted in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, Article 215(2) TFEU provides for the possibility that the Council may adopt restrictive measures not only against the leaders of a third country and the persons or ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"7d6c1ac974960a51ff03d723b24e1e4be4d65dbedb875d293e151eb9954581c4"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-402-05","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-402/05","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_842"],"excerpt":"In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as the General Court correctly noted in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, Article 215(2) TFEU provides for the possibility that the Council may adopt restrictive measures not only against the leaders of a third country and the persons or ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"25c4202166ccd5ac75c5e2f4f4281201268df5888f99fd731bcd48c88ba87d88"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-415-05","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-415/05","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_842"],"excerpt":"In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as the General Court correctly noted in paragraph 37 of the fifth judgment under appeal, Article 215(2) TFEU provides for the possibility that the Council may adopt restrictive measures not only against the leaders of a third country and the persons or ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"824a4e8052ad03fe9d4a24f925b790d73de4fc3d82f49023b59f7ea9b12c911f"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-417-11","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-417/11","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_613"],"excerpt":"Accordingly, the first appellant’s criticisms relate to the General Court’s legal characterisation of the facts as constituting evidence justifying the use of the restrictive measures adopted against him (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 November 2012, Council v Bamba, C-417/11 P , EU:C:2012:718 , pa","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"8c794a92aefd161c3d480ac58f6843a71c987002c31de67bd54c0bfb5f5359a5"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-418-18","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-418/18","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_512"],"excerpt":"However, according to settled case-law, although the preamble of an EU act may explain the content of the provisions of that act in so far as the recitals constitute important elements for the purposes of interpretation, which may clarify the intentions of the author of that act, that preamble has, ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"1825f0847baf3b53b7ef67d4bc1043969fd2d87231a9a7fc6e77f233cf4ac6e9"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-440-14","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-440/14","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_480","para_506"],"excerpt":"The Court has stated that EU acts providing for restrictive measures must be interpreted in the light of the historical context of the provisions adopted by the European Union, of which those acts form part (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 March 2016, National Iranian Oil Company v Council, C-440","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"698ac98d23188b375c968758097cf0e100be56d86ae6e933fa92a653f477a188"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-441-07","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-441/07","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_970"],"excerpt":"That appellant is in reality criticising the General Court for disregarding the scope of its judicial review by substituting its own assessments of fact and reasoning for those of the Council, which is a question of law that can be subject to review by the Court on appeal (see, to that effect, judgm","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"b3637e3bbb554f35c86846d8f06afd3062bc2a5450883fefff681f154f5c81ae"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-447-17","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-447/17","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1229"],"excerpt":"Accordingly, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, persons such as the fifth appellant may bring an action of that nature, within five years of the occurrence of the fact that gave rise to the ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"abe68d252b17016aa94bd817d9175b6ac2ca496f62a0eed25456fe8c7c3bd931"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-46-98","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-46/98","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1237"],"excerpt":"It follows that an appeal must contain grounds that seek to take issue in law with a decision of the General Court and which are capable of affecting the operative part of that decision, failing which those grounds will be found to be ineffective because they cannot lead to the setting aside, in ful","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"28063e1babbd370e850d64557371332a70881ca817fb0d6582d3923ab55e0811"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-478-11","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-478/11","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_852"],"excerpt":"Accordingly, the Court, which has jurisdiction under the combined provisions of the second paragraph of Article 275 and the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU to assess the legality of EU acts providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons, groups and non-State entities and, t","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"12ba44a2937edabbf0290ce4105febc32da4ec3bcf4b030ff8220971eb6c275a"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-479-17","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-479/17","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1229"],"excerpt":"Accordingly, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, persons such as the fifth appellant may bring an action of that nature, within five years of the occurrence of the fact that gave rise to the ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"7a3196c796b780d9bd4d2f0a0697191c3b1e2971685ac2f8a858afab88fcbe59"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-482-11","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-482/11","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_852"],"excerpt":"Accordingly, the Court, which has jurisdiction under the combined provisions of the second paragraph of Article 275 and the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU to assess the legality of EU acts providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons, groups and non-State entities and, t","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"de1829ca4523a706e5cce451e80e9b3c37d6e447a9aaf6b9428f2be8d1690845"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-541-20","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-541/20","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_668"],"excerpt":"However, those requirements cannot be interpreted as precluding the EU legislature from having recourse, in a provision that it adopts, to an abstract legal notion, nor as requiring that such an abstract provision refer to the various specific hypotheses in which it applies, given that all those hyp","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"9b1984ad9a4e61a7fcee7be99d670d70b70629eba967e977ac0d8a57b0a2c97e"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-555-20","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-555/20","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_668"],"excerpt":"However, those requirements cannot be interpreted as precluding the EU legislature from having recourse, in a provision that it adopts, to an abstract legal notion, nor as requiring that such an abstract provision refer to the various specific hypotheses in which it applies, given that all those hyp","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"dfffe5007ab014f39f47e7669e2c23a97096d55015c079168986d9743ba0e434"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-570-19","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-570/19","id":"eu:c-570-19-62019cj0570","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-570-19-62019cj0570"},"paragraph_ids":["para_670"],"excerpt":"Furthermore, there cannot be a breach of the principle of legal certainty on the sole ground that the Courts of the European Union have to use methods of interpretation other than a literal interpretation of a provision of general application (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 September 2021, Irish","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"d549b90300fb53fe65ccad24d2c0806721b7de2c9e450eb9aad77663cb228abb"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-584-10","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-584/10","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1219","para_1225"],"excerpt":"The Court has already held, in respect of the review of the lawfulness of an EU decision adopting restrictive measures, that, having regard to their preventive nature, if the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned is sufficiently detailed and spec","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"8a741c79e4e470ffac9200bff47c53ffd63e548af515301a071e153c00439e0c"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-584-20","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-584/20","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1149","para_1162"],"excerpt":"Next, an alleged infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of the corollaries of that right, the principle of equality of arms and the principle of audi alteram partem , which the General Court must uphold in procedures brought before it, is a question of law that falls within the jurisdiction","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"b206f2ca8dc26aada39646e1c701d923c624924a71879734005369f5a9d44d0a"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-593-10","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-593/10","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1219","para_1225"],"excerpt":"The Court has already held, in respect of the review of the lawfulness of an EU decision adopting restrictive measures, that, having regard to their preventive nature, if the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned is sufficiently detailed and spec","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"a460241530161f1a6e91782d1c6ae999e4bc2f71c4a8562e1f67293cd65e686e"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-595-10","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-595/10","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1219","para_1225"],"excerpt":"The Court has already held, in respect of the review of the lawfulness of an EU decision adopting restrictive measures, that, having regard to their preventive nature, if the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned is sufficiently detailed and spec","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"c7156c343c169de5adc90bf65e32c44037eeee8c6df1c76575c78bc4658eb816"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-601-15","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-601/15","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_808"],"excerpt":"As regards the substance, it must be recalled that, in accordance with a general principle of interpretation, an EU measure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity and in conformity with primary law as a whole and, in particular, with the provisions of th","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"cc8eb2deda912670478df9e02d9e7050bcb5da08217e0c0f24106bf3bc9dd99c"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-605-13","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-605/13","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_852"],"excerpt":"Specifically, as is apparent, in essence, from paragraph 230 of the present judgment, the Council has broad discretion as regards the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures adopted in that field and as regards the definition and scope of the general criteria on the basis of which t","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"55c4c33969861e2480cdae4e105ef019d27eb2e1aa3ec9e8bd42054b86d8aa0c"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-61-22","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-61/22","id":"eu:c-61-22-62022cj0061","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-61-22-62022cj0061"},"paragraph_ids":["para_708","para_712"],"excerpt":"It must be borne in mind that the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter and the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter are not absolute and that their exercise may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of p","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"dbfe7cb824a34c6b014c675aec1e7c93f7c2ba746f4f852e8d0467db66aa172b"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-621-20","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-621/20","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1149","para_1162"],"excerpt":"Next, an alleged infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of the corollaries of that right, the principle of equality of arms and the principle of audi alteram partem , which the General Court must uphold in procedures brought before it, is a question of law that falls within the jurisdiction","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"35487d5418e0e6bd2327590bd2b99dba3f01bd6bef7dd9378f070f3130ef88e1"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-696-23","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-696/23","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_9","para_15","para_24","para_30","para_44","para_46","para_49","para_52","para_55","para_93","para_104","para_105"],"excerpt":"By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 16 June 2025, the first appellant applied to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C-696/23 P, in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"d83c4471f27aac57e02d9425ea8024bc4945da640afb43a1df22d9d4b22967c5"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-702-23","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-702/23","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_752","para_1239"],"excerpt":"That argument is effectively asking the Court of Justice to review a potential breach by the General Court of the principle of proportionality and of the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence, which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to do on appeal (see, to that effect","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"1e826c84b376dc74e659788dd683b85cc6c4f6da89f3f8945b043585c152b527"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-703-23","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-703/23","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_668","para_674"],"excerpt":"However, those requirements cannot be interpreted as precluding the EU legislature from having recourse, in a provision that it adopts, to an abstract legal notion, nor as requiring that such an abstract provision refer to the various specific hypotheses in which it applies, given that all those hyp","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"66f57058b8a2f6598d2ff954c24c134677b7202732af15957fcf9f954f15e6d6"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-71-09","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-71/09","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1237"],"excerpt":"It follows that an appeal must contain grounds that seek to take issue in law with a decision of the General Court and which are capable of affecting the operative part of that decision, failing which those grounds will be found to be ineffective because they cannot lead to the setting aside, in ful","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"d81ed240b8789247b59ddbbeb7ddc0f417694fbbb5e0f10ac10a2c841fc5447f"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-710-22","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-710/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_605"],"excerpt":"When the General Court has found or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 256 TFEU to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the General Court and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 March 2021, Deutsche Te","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"64741704526ba7651b23805737b9a4cb5a1b5be6f74e3b753d6fdfd6bee75117"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-711-23","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-711/23","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_17","para_26","para_31","para_35","para_38","para_66","para_74","para_79"],"excerpt":"By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 5 June 2025, the third appellant applied to reopen the oral part of the procedure in Case C-711/23 P, in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure.","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"2b5b27398315a3e860a1dc7cfcab9c30e20e32d07fb48dbc30821af716c92f2d"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-72-15","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-72/15","id":"eu:c-72-15","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-72-15"},"paragraph_ids":["para_518","para_708","para_762","para_764","para_772","para_848","para_850","para_858","para_920"],"excerpt":"In that context, the Court has held that the objective of the individual and sectoral restrictive measures taken since 2014 was, inter alia, to increase the costs of the actions of the Russian Federation to undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (see, to that ef","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"2f75462ef3b8c65ea7be08b25ead06aef6986d846f26eccc7e39e28908eeef71"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-729-18","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-729/18","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_518","para_785","para_920","para_930"],"excerpt":"In that context, the Court has held that the objective of the individual and sectoral restrictive measures taken since 2014 was, inter alia, to increase the costs of the actions of the Russian Federation to undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (see, to that ef","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"1d301aa9a8439d96253f26531ee94229278fcfcd9f40f59b869798ec2c204898"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-73-09","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-73/09","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1237"],"excerpt":"It follows that an appeal must contain grounds that seek to take issue in law with a decision of the General Court and which are capable of affecting the operative part of that decision, failing which those grounds will be found to be ineffective because they cannot lead to the setting aside, in ful","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"8b83631f727caad9751ba2958b6c5224888b033dbd450c355318b9b2a729a43f"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-732-18","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-732/18","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_768"],"excerpt":"It is apparent from paragraphs 229 to 232 of the present judgment that, in order to determine whether the restrictive measures enacted by the European Union or the general rules laid down in an EU act imposing restrictive measures comply with the principle of proportionality, or whether the interfer","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"e562e54082e0e9374e7feea41737bdac81f47fd6a55accbe92be593502705242"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-76-09","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-76/09","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1237"],"excerpt":"It follows that an appeal must contain grounds that seek to take issue in law with a decision of the General Court and which are capable of affecting the operative part of that decision, failing which those grounds will be found to be ineffective because they cannot lead to the setting aside, in ful","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"c4b86e88f92708a1d96ab6be7af45b0406da780a76741a72b4db011d5386b730"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-778-21","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-778/21","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_716"],"excerpt":"However, according to settled case-law, if the grounds of a decision of the General Court reveal an infringement of EU law but the operative part of that decision can be seen to be well founded on other legal grounds, that infringement is not capable of leading to the setting aside of that decision ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"e30e67247e00a886abc6715ce525666935415956d911aae1b5e4c9f1662f3ad8"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-798-21","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-798/21","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_716"],"excerpt":"However, according to settled case-law, if the grounds of a decision of the General Court reveal an infringement of EU law but the operative part of that decision can be seen to be well founded on other legal grounds, that infringement is not capable of leading to the setting aside of that decision ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"b0ed09592c1d3fcbc7bb42fa8bfa594c8cc9aad93207dda3c8378c2785d76334"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-805-24","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-805/24","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_848"],"excerpt":"In that context, the Council, having broad discretion in that regard and acting unanimously, is called upon to determine or define the persons and entities to be subject to the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in the area of the common foreign and security policy (see, to that effe","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"5700d4b38656da72257f0dbb6227faaecccbd39947c1d8d54e6a1946cd84b222"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~follows~c-98-17","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-98/17","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_615"],"excerpt":"The appellant in question would otherwise be improperly deprived of the opportunity to draw attention to any contradiction or incoherence in the General Court’s interpretation of that provision, even though the question of whether or not that court interpreted EU law correctly and uniformly in the l","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"fc6b9466504341de13d35181f334465d2368413d82bc2e5acab640429a664bb2"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-111-24","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-111/24","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_10","para_11","para_12","para_19","para_28","para_38","para_47","para_48","para_59","para_63","para_79","para_89"],"excerpt":"The acts at issue (Cases C-704/23 P, C-711/23 P and C-111/24 P)","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"216b26bce09ffe075450db90c8d495b48fd592de623b6b68ab2b06e7b88feb37"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-173-22","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-173/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_918"],"excerpt":"In that regard, it must be observed that the principle of equal treatment, as also laid down in Article 20 of the Charter, is a general principle of EU law, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unl","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"7c069ffcda93ae3687bc99ac7feb1e7a76c2bf11e0a07d6426624c316a1d56b8"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-224-15","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-224/15","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_1127"],"excerpt":"On the issue of admissibility, to the extent that, by the third complaint in the first part of his first ground of appeal in Case C-704/23 P, the second appellant claims that the General Court failed to state sufficient reasons in paragraph 126 of the second judgment under appeal, it must be recalle","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"81ee5ac7220f15dfc69a6161013749727c100e55dcc8c044676a713229e01713"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-265-19","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-265/19","id":"eu:c-265-19-62019cj0265","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-265-19-62019cj0265"},"paragraph_ids":["para_718"],"excerpt":"In that regard, Article 52(1) of the Charter admittedly requires that any limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter must be provided for by law, which implies that the legal basis which permits the interference with that right must itself define, clearly and precise","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"88a4ef732e664533a0a15c6eae40e1a40ac7f8f02c8722e97705a83f4f5bdcde"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-280-12","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-280/12","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_977"],"excerpt":"Although there is no requirement that that authority produce before the Courts of the European Union all the information and evidence underlying the reasons alleged in the act of which annulment is sought, it is, however, necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"0662728849d3794157a92eb32f120b6721f76f8dfa762817506542a1579a48f9"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-311-18","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-311/18","id":"eu:c-311-18-62018cj0311","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-311-18-62018cj0311"},"paragraph_ids":["para_718"],"excerpt":"In that regard, Article 52(1) of the Charter admittedly requires that any limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter must be provided for by law, which implies that the legal basis which permits the interference with that right must itself define, clearly and precise","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"530886927a0db257329f53fff62a502f40932daee24960d161932a27c2c69609"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-327-24","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-327/24","id":"eu:c-327-24","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-327-24"},"paragraph_ids":["para_482"],"excerpt":"Where there is divergence between the various language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see judgments of 25 March 2010, Helmut Müller, C-451/08 , EU:C:2010:168 , paragraph 38 , and of 20 Novemb","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"4de08bd83dfa932136274c97f510ea278fdbd0e51d6138618e81f19741f5278a"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-431-19","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-431/19","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_889"],"excerpt":"Accordingly, arguments in an appeal which criticise the decision of which annulment was applied for before the General Court, rather than the judgment delivered by the General Court following that application for annulment, are manifestly inadmissible (judgment of 17 December 2020, Inpost Paczkomaty","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"7db276b79aa764836b503ccea00464a7e7d54f454bbdc0f1cc49b9645ba3a8f4"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-432-19","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-432/19","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_889"],"excerpt":"Accordingly, arguments in an appeal which criticise the decision of which annulment was applied for before the General Court, rather than the judgment delivered by the General Court following that application for annulment, are manifestly inadmissible (judgment of 17 December 2020, Inpost Paczkomaty","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"e73d9940ebf4872f67facc4d1d35be453dfe64467877889bdc4138e670b23d4d"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-451-08","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-451/08","id":"eu:c-451-08","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-451-08"},"paragraph_ids":["para_482"],"excerpt":"Where there is divergence between the various language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see judgments of 25 March 2010, Helmut Müller, C-451/08 , EU:C:2010:168 , paragraph 38 , and of 20 Novemb","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"eceb75a8da8cb6e656ead90d538a7326d3c63273c7a0a4fe7e66a8b01bb41ad0"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-46-22","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-46/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_484"],"excerpt":"The obligation to state reasons incumbent on the General Court 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, and the reasoning may thus be implicit, on condition that it enables the persons","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"ade2c7f110e427ca63d1edbd205aaa1c83eb88d2c38f8ade88c5d4392ee18e8d"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-588-21","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-588/21","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_421"],"excerpt":"Consequently, a party’s disagreement with the Opinion of the Advocate General, irrespective of the questions that he or she examines in his or her Opinion, cannot in itself constitute grounds justifying the reopening of the oral part of the procedure (judgment of 5 March 2024, Public.Resource.Org an","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"7ad8fddca07771926a3c25fba9567cf3366c01cb8448006cacb4cd21febfc556"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~c-704-23","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"C-704/23","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_16","para_25","para_38","para_46","para_47","para_52","para_74","para_77"],"excerpt":"The acts at issue (Cases C-704/23 P, C-711/23 P and C-111/24 P)","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"ce9754124a8cfe6ec0981472c3988ba0ea7cfe9e8200c7afee8af7c1f22ae69f"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~t-202-12","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"T-202/12","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_777"],"excerpt":"First, the references to the case-law of the General Court made in paragraph 143 of the second judgment under appeal, in particular the reference to paragraph 116 of the judgment of 12 March 2014, Al Assad v Council ( T-202/12 , EU:T:2014:113 ), in which the General Court found the restrictive measu","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"97574967ab7d1e573fd07857c81e09f30a9e56c845a4486e360fa6eb55eb8cfc"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~t-270-22","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"T-270/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_144"],"excerpt":"By his appeal in Case C-696/23 P, Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy (‘the first appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 September 2023, Pumpyanskiy v Council ( T-270/22 , the first judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:490 ), by which the General Cour","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"b3795ec9f00f3d630e791b07ed109401b1578da655900dc456a9a5f4e4024763"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~t-282-22","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"T-282/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_150"],"excerpt":"By his appeal in Case C-35/24 P, Mr Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin (‘the fourth appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2023, Mazepin v Council ( T-282/22 , the fourth judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:701 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking ","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"eba867d2deafb53f02d949587789e937a703f884db2f5e971de3e528b5b72e7f"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~t-305-22","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"T-305/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_148"],"excerpt":"By his appeal in Case C-711/23 P, Mr Viktor Filippovich Rashnikov (‘the third appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2023, Rashnikov v Council (T-305/22, ‘the third judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2023:530 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seek","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"da661312c6d135009ac69574d57da99d1d8418b0abeb53c4151a66238d76c8e1"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~t-333-22","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"T-333/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_152","para_1096"],"excerpt":"By his appeal in Case C-111/24 P, Mr German Khan (‘the fifth appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2023, Khan v Council ( T-333/22 , the fifth judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:758 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking annulment of the in","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"eb9f744a424c8fb00bed5fc463a71da856ddd2551523867fcc97dd08a695eb35"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:62023cj0696~cites~t-335-22","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:62023cj0696","to":{"ref":"T-335/22","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_146"],"excerpt":"By his appeal in Case C-704/23 P, Mr Tigran Khudaverdyan (‘the second appellant’) seeks annulment of the judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2023, Khudaverdyan v Council ( T-335/22 , the second judgment under appeal, EU:T:2023:500 ), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking a","decided":"2026-03-26","hash":"b76cae4926bd50ea1dd85238e468bdaad65357e9b518e0ac0bc45b60c7f3ee77"}],"incoming":[],"acts":[],"counts":{"outgoing":77,"incoming":0,"acts":0},"follow":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696?follow=5","hash":"5459a03e5185667a3fe3bec04ac570d63a8976e9d4eba2476fb0251f9981c257"},"links":{"provisions":null,"case_law":{"precedent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:62023cj0696","conflict":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/conflict/eu:62023cj0696","citation_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/citation_graph/eu:62023cj0696","weight":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/weight/eu:62023cj0696"},"compact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696?view=compact","representations":{"sv":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/62023cj0696","en":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/en/eu/praxis/62023cj0696"},"machine_languages":["en","sv"],"ref":"eu:62023cj0696"},"watch":{"risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu%3A62023cj0696","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu%3A62023cj0696","risk_changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk-changes","node_state":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-state?id=eu%3A62023cj0696","provenance":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/provenance/eu:62023cj0696"},"metadata":{"schema":"novacopilot_object_metadata/1","canonical_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","official_source":null,"short_answer":null,"short_answer_status":"not_in_register","hash":"5459a03e5185667a3fe3bec04ac570d63a8976e9d4eba2476fb0251f9981c257","schema_version":"1","last_verified_at":null,"verification_status":"not_verified_yet","integrity_check_scope":"stored_content_only"},"hash":"sha256:8718d9d1cf69159e86ad03fc8a86e192eaf2db0fd7d26a04e73b1d0980107119","version":"legal-2026-10-31","expires":"2026-11-01T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-31+legal-2026-10-31+2026-10-31T04:42:17","content_hash":"sha256:8718d9d1cf69159e86ad03fc8a86e192eaf2db0fd7d26a04e73b1d0980107119","revalidate_after":"2026-10-31T12:37:15.108Z","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/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696","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","withheld":{"links.evidence":3},"access":{"status":"partner_key_required","header":"x-partner-key","contact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/kontakt","note":"Facts and counts are public. Relationships and decision paths stay inside NovaCopilot."},"access_class":"relationship","access_view":"public","freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-10-31T11:37:15.820Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:62023cj0696","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":16906}}