This is the General Court’s judgment in Case T-271/23, *Alfa-Bank JSC v Council*, concerning the restrictive measures imposed on Alfa-Bank by the European Union following Russia’s actions against Ukraine. The court rules on Alfa-Bank’s application for annulment of several Council decisions and regulations that included and maintained the bank’s name on the EU’s sanctions list. The court ultimately dismisses the action, upholding the EU’s sanctions against Alfa-Bank.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Briefly outlines the context of the case, including the EU’s restrictive measures against Russia due to the situation in Ukraine and the listing of Alfa-Bank.
* **Claims for Annulment:** Addresses Alfa-Bank’s specific claims for annulment of Council Decision 2023/1094 and Council Regulation 2023/1089.
* **Substance:** This is the core of the judgment, where the court examines the merits of Alfa-Bank’s arguments against the sanctions. It considers the following pleas:
* **Plea of Illegality:** Alfa-Bank challenges the legality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, specifically Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended.
* **Infringement of Obligation to State Reasons:** Alfa-Bank argues that the Council did not provide sufficient reasons for including it on the sanctions list.
* **Infringement of Rights of Defence and Effective Judicial Protection:** Alfa-Bank claims it was not given adequate opportunity to be heard before the sanctions were imposed.
* **Manifest Error of Assessment:** Alfa-Bank argues that the Council made errors in assessing the facts and that there was insufficient evidence to justify the sanctions.
* **Insufficiency of Factual Basis for Links:** Alfa-Bank claims there was not enough evidence to link it to individuals or entities associated with undermining Ukraine’s integrity.
* **Infringement of Fundamental Rights and Proportionality:** Alfa-Bank argues that the sanctions violate its fundamental rights and are disproportionate.
* **Costs:** The court orders Alfa-Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment deals with the application of restrictive measures based on Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended. A key point of contention is the interpretation and application of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, which allows for sanctions against “leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.”
The judgment also discusses the amendment of Article 2(1)(g) by Decision 2023/1094, which clarified the criteria for imposing sanctions.
**Most Important Provisions:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are:
* **Interpretation of Sanctions Criteria:** The court provides detailed interpretation of the criteria used to impose sanctions, particularly the meaning of “leading businesspersons” and “economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue.”
* **Assessment of Evidence:** The court assesses the evidence presented by the Council to justify the sanctions against Alfa-Bank, including press releases, articles, and other publicly available information.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The court considers Alfa-Bank’s arguments that the sanctions violate its fundamental rights, such as the freedom to conduct a business and the right to property, and assesses whether the restrictions are proportionate.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment affirms the court’s role in reviewing the legality of EU sanctions, ensuring that they are based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and comply with fundamental rights.
**** This case is related to the restrictive measures taken by the EU in response to the actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
