{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-39-25-p)",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-10-22",
    "fingerprint": "ewai:se:99de1f",
    "proof": "sha256:4960997fb3336a032552e13e0a8545db3eda7c2bb74d1223b7c272276f144c22",
    "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:c-39-25-p",
  "schema_version": "1",
  "schema": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/schemas/edge",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-39-25-p",
  "judgment": {
    "id": "eu:c-39-25-p",
    "text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-39-25-p"
  },
  "siblings": {
    "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/risk/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "relation": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/relation/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "change": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/change/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/agent/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "provenance": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/provenance/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "status": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/status/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "precedent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "element": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/element/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "decision": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/decision/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "weight": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/weight/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "conflict": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/conflict/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "citation_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/citation_graph/eu:c-39-25-p"
  },
  "source": "NovaCopilot",
  "precedent_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/precedent-graph/eu:c-39-25-p",
  "item": {
    "judgment": "eu:c-39-25-p",
    "outgoing": [
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-242-21",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-242/21",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_98"
        ],
        "excerpt": "Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the General Court, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 May 2022, Boshab v Council , C-242/21 P, EU:C:2022:375, paragraph ",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "0a05b3c02fbfb09673c67b74846420d104dcd3e5fcc7b4ecce82c2d3055e9b4b"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-246-11",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-246/11",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_192"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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, paragrap",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "d0edfff5a1e9c697b2892e60aeaff63e3317d99e2946f9b0c9a7952e82bca323"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-248-17",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-248/17",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_187"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 that d",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "a6ba1cd649869598180a17feadad7d75f61518c5cbefbcacf67778deead94294"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-271-24",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-271/24",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_209"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 criterion i",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "fc3b35bec9a9b6e88fbdb4fe07cf811ba99d615d043fc09a9c8a462f38192dfe"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-413-21",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-413/21",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_205"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 75).",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "45993beee49798b6df7ec990fa9d2f6bb498885527377d47e04673929700de0a"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-456-18",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-456/18",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_192"
        ],
        "excerpt": "The General Court may not therefore, add to, subtract from or amend the statement of reasons for acts the lawfulness of which is challenged before it, in particular where it is argued that those acts do not satisfy the requirement to state reasons (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 4 J",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "a7e80670c4adb3d387b05dd52021569302882727fef81f0a7b4c7c39800e1b79"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-51-19",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-51/19",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_192"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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, paragrap",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "d17b65f62a9170b5cef114f5dddea2a119df30a06c6a167300a02ef6c9c65296"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-559-12",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-559/12",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_139"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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-559/12 P,",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "c11940d22fa4b2d4e0dfa02f5358fc6558a9d79097f4adf8f7b27bba760f1e3e"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-630-13",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-630/13",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_144"
        ],
        "excerpt": "Thus, in a context that does not facilitate access to evidence and objective information, it is sufficient to produce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council , C-630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragr",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "dbdbe79ae105a8f7d2810cbb25271cdfa3c06e868a82f7c437277f8a69b9e482"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~c-64-19",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-64/19",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_192"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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, paragrap",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "66db1ff7d06d653d1254befe5655ade605bf07c413b8bcab6fed60fc5a999a06"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-181-12",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-181/12",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_223"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 adopted (s",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "e41fd00332cf86a2ac1e04f30342035a9d18cc8f3192cd7a38f9fb4bde9f3830"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-252-22",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-252/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_109"
        ],
        "excerpt": "In order to sanction a person on the basis of that criterion, it is not the existence of common economic interests that ought to be established, in the appellant’s submission, but the ability of the person included on the list in question to exert influence on the decision-making process of the comp",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "504fb58d290af9cb4843f72b607ff0a5567351ca73c9b5a460dfad586291af72"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-262-15",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-262/15",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_109"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 2014, ",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "ef9bd012bd1eb16099f2ea7ac963125c41546a6703c859c868079f096fa39455"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-301-22",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-301/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_169",
          "para_204"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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, judgm",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "f043fe4971d538031a25339ca0a05838aa34d11762c8cd796e759850f79b6a7d"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-309-22",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-309/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_109",
          "para_204"
        ],
        "excerpt": "In order to sanction a person on the basis of that criterion, it is not the existence of common economic interests that ought to be established, in the appellant’s submission, but the ability of the person included on the list in question to exert influence on the decision-making process of the comp",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "b5406330a016ddc8d3d47d064907228d22fab5c265b07c4b9afbe927b4f7e103"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-42-12",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-42/12",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_223"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 adopted (s",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "1965aca9decc1ac4948a43e10fc552691585058b9dffcb66e313d4620ba63768"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-540-19",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-540/19",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_223"
        ],
        "excerpt": "In the event of any doubt, it is for the General Court to find that the allegation in question has not been sufficiently substantiated by the Council (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 28 April 2021, Sharif v Council , T-540/19, EU:T:2021:220, paragraphs 120 to 122), since the General ",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "99149026bca7930524b6f5945ecb9e5ed25d9e107fab5a564e706abadf37c6bd"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-578-12",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-578/12",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_109"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 2014, ",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "f9eaf7d4ba91d81293736d6d47f8ffd3e03589f2caa5e210a9f3de151068ee43"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-58-12",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-58/12",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_109"
        ],
        "excerpt": "In order to sanction a person on the basis of that criterion, it is not the existence of common economic interests that ought to be established, in the appellant’s submission, but the ability of the person included on the list in question to exert influence on the decision-making process of the comp",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "c6b9d5029933abaeb02e888306c6464186f52f3c50f0eb38a9184fad5ea55b1f"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-739-22",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-739/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_109",
          "para_204"
        ],
        "excerpt": "In order to sanction a person on the basis of that criterion, it is not the existence of common economic interests that ought to be established, in the appellant’s submission, but the ability of the person included on the list in question to exert influence on the decision-making process of the comp",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "e4479ceeb855c0d94acb91b33b2da931fa0372a4f061c9322849048e872977b7"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-741-22",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-741/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_109",
          "para_208"
        ],
        "excerpt": "That criterion cannot be confused with a simple form of association, at the risk of depriving it of any effectiveness (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 September 2024, Ezubov v Council , T-741/22, EU:T:2024:605, paragraph 186).",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "fab57f36e05b1a566e7986760d8ed8699eaaa7c82cafa2cf6f930b3db3c1b465"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-744-22",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-744/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_204",
          "para_208"
        ],
        "excerpt": "Moreover, in the same judgment, the individual concerned had been sanctioned on the basis of human rights violations committed under his responsibility in the past, which does not, however, in the appellant's submission, call into question the fact that, according to the settled case-law of the Gene",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "ca9103a64e640d7538242b38b70c9ac196dc7c1f741238b86ecf121e53700861"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~follows~t-765-15",
        "type": "follows",
        "label_sv": "följer",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-765/15",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_180"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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).",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "38e9c4a5167286887a03d62e383779cf65ebdf0c5bcadc9bcdd9845f6ca0ca0f"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~c-376-10",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-376/10",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_204"
        ],
        "excerpt": "Furthermore, the individual sanctioned was part of the ‘first circle’ of natural persons to whom the restrictive measures are addressed - as categorised in point 40 of the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Tay Za v Council (C-376/10 P, EU:C:2011:786) - in his capacity as former deputy prime mi",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "c171aaa290b21e10ea076518de0097f0722cc0118caaee4860d55e0934f2aad5"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~c-39-25",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-39/25",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_4"
        ],
        "excerpt": "In Case C-39/25 P,",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "f5a0e7768bb464b8c1981e746351b8b40769ea347762566d6a9c38f9ef233420"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~c-602-22",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-602/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_99"
        ],
        "excerpt": "Furthermore, an appeal lacking any coherent structure which simply makes general statements and contains no specific indications as to the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal which may be vitiated by an error of law must be dismissed as clearly inadmissible (judgment of 11 December 2025, ABLV Ba",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "50e734d823841f1116f07ddd11d07b2e34971a54bd51a3ffa1f23a06d71e3837"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~c-635-24",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "C-635/24",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_137"
        ],
        "excerpt": "The assessment of the facts and evidence does not, save where the facts and evidence are distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal (judgment of 7 May 2026, Makhlouf v Council , C-635/24 P, EU:C:2026:377, paragraph 45 and the case-law ",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "ed00edc2933dbf296e7255b257a40509b65f8e00ade07a0918af5220d6dcc229"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~t-171-18",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-171/18",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_204"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 jud",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "de01b422ca0fcf866e7c4199fdf11fd93fd0d2e55101b099319d67b8451f5d29"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~t-239-21",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-239/21",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_110",
          "para_120",
          "para_224"
        ],
        "excerpt": "The appellant argues that the General Court only referred, in paragraphs 44, 67, 80, 94, 105, 107, 111 and 115 of the judgment under appeal, to the preferential treatment received by those companies by reference to the judgment of 28 June 2023, Dana Astra v Council (T-239/21, EU:T:2023:364).",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "38cf91163a7b76dec65c152d2d721474e4ae44ff38b1175f09fb7961ed4d9fbd"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~t-283-22",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-283/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_169"
        ],
        "excerpt": "The same may be said as regards the single meeting that the appellant allegedly had with President Lukashenko in 2015 and the fact that he attended the same event as the latter in 2017 (see, by analogy, judgment of 20 December 2023, Moshkovich v Council , T-283/22, EU:T:2023:849, paragraph 42).",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "ce6ca41284fbf29f79f554ce23c9799b356b60445de3fcad64896710102dbada"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~t-363-22",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-363/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_208"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 statem",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "b79380019e3099ef7b4fad1c0388f828db7ec64eee15f732f6f807f1cd7b8f9c"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~t-520-22",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-520/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_19"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 (i) Cou",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "03a4992cb47091d934ae641425645c33917515130ebeb5527aa0c79f48cae3ca"
      },
      {
        "edge_id": "edge:eu:c-39-25-p~cites~t-743-22",
        "type": "cites",
        "label_sv": "hänvisar till",
        "from": "eu:c-39-25-p",
        "to": {
          "ref": "T-743/22",
          "id": null,
          "url": null
        },
        "paragraph_ids": [
          "para_208"
        ],
        "excerpt": "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 statem",
        "decided": "2026-07-16",
        "hash": "c09473a1523f2f2d33644609477301ec283e7a87986e36d67e29610b26fd8869"
      }
    ],
    "incoming": [],
    "acts": [],
    "counts": {
      "outgoing": 33,
      "incoming": 0,
      "acts": 0
    },
    "follow": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-39-25-p?follow=5",
    "hash": "ca12952dc3e349606c0065b7dc1f44e070a11689ff1f1f8b13f085ef4d4fa1f2"
  },
  "links": {
    "provisions": null,
    "case_law": {
      "precedent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-39-25-p",
      "conflict": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/conflict/eu:c-39-25-p",
      "citation_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/citation_graph/eu:c-39-25-p",
      "weight": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/weight/eu:c-39-25-p"
    },
    "compact": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-39-25-p?view=compact",
    "representations": {
      "sv": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-39-25-p",
      "en": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/en/eu/praxis/c-39-25-p"
    },
    "machine_languages": [
      "en",
      "sv"
    ],
    "ref": "eu:c-39-25-p"
  },
  "watch": {
    "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/changes",
    "whats_new": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu",
    "conditional": "Send If-None-Match with the ETag; unchanged objects return 304 without body.",
    "recheck_after_seconds": 86400
  },
  "metadata": {
    "schema": "novacopilot_object_metadata/1",
    "canonical_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-39-25-p",
    "source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
    "official_source": null,
    "short_answer": null,
    "short_answer_status": "not_in_register",
    "hash": "ca12952dc3e349606c0065b7dc1f44e070a11689ff1f1f8b13f085ef4d4fa1f2",
    "schema_version": "1",
    "last_verified_at": null,
    "verification_status": "not_verified_yet",
    "integrity_check_scope": "stored_content_only"
  },
  "hash": "sha256:4960997fb3336a032552e13e0a8545db3eda7c2bb74d1223b7c272276f144c22",
  "version": "legal-2026-10-22",
  "expires": "2026-10-24T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-10-22+legal-2026-10-22+2026-10-22T16:20:29",
    "content_hash": "sha256:4960997fb3336a032552e13e0a8545db3eda7c2bb74d1223b7c272276f144c22",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-10-23T05:01:52.333Z",
    "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:c-39-25-p",
  "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"
}