This is a judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Boguslayev, an Ukrainian citizen. The case concerns the Council of the European Union’s decision to maintain Mr. Boguslayev’s name on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes due to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. Mr. Boguslayev sought the annulment of the Council’s decision and compensation for damages allegedly suffered as a result of these measures.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background:** Describes the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the EU concerning actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. It outlines previous decisions and regulations, including the initial listing of Mr. Boguslayev and subsequent amendments.
2. **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the claims of Mr. Boguslayev, who argues that the Council’s decision was flawed due to errors in assessment, violation of the right to effective judicial protection, failure to state reasons, violation of the principle of proportionality, and violation of fundamental rights. The Council defends its decision, asserting that it had sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Boguslayev on the list.
3. **Legal Analysis:**
* **Annulment Claim:** The Court focuses on the argument of errors in assessment. It reviews the evidence presented by the Council and assesses whether it sufficiently supports the reasons for maintaining Mr. Boguslayev on the list. The Court finds that the Council failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the continued listing, considering changes in Mr. Boguslayev’s situation (detention by Ukrainian authorities, removal from his position at Motor Sich).
* **Claim for Damages:** The Court examines Mr. Boguslayev’s claim for compensation for moral damages, specifically regarding harm to his reputation and the presumption of innocence. The Court acknowledges the potential for reputational damage but finds that Mr. Boguslayev did not provide sufficient evidence of actual damage suffered.
4. **Decision:** The Court annuls the Council’s decision to maintain Mr. Boguslayev’s name on the list but rejects the claim for damages. The Council is ordered to bear its own costs and those of Mr. Boguslayev.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* The Court annuls the Council’s decision to maintain Mr. Boguslayev’s name on the list of sanctioned individuals, finding that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the continued restrictions, especially considering his detention and removal from his position at Motor Sich.
* The Court rejects Mr. Boguslayev’s claim for damages, stating that he did not provide sufficient evidence of actual harm to his reputation or violation of the presumption of innocence.
* The judgment reinforces the importance of providing concrete and updated evidence when maintaining sanctions, especially when the circumstances of the sanctioned individual have changed.
: This act has direct implications for an Ukrainian citizen. The decision highlights the need for the Council to regularly review and update the factual basis for sanctions, particularly in light of changing circumstances.
