This is a judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of the European Union, delivered on July 23, 2025, in Case T-1095/23, concerning OT against the Council of the European Union. The judgment addresses restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed due to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. Specifically, it concerns the freezing of funds and the listing of individuals and entities subject to these measures.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background to the Dispute:** This section outlines the context of the case, including the EU’s restrictive measures against actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity, the initial listing of the applicant (OT) following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and subsequent decisions modifying and maintaining these measures.
2. **Facts Subsequent to the Commencement of Proceedings:** This part details events that occurred after the initial legal action, including further communications between OT and the Council, and additional decisions maintaining OT’s name on the sanctions lists.
3. **Forms of Order Sought:** This section summarizes the requests made by OT (applicant) and the Council (defendant). OT seeks annulment of the decisions maintaining his name on the sanctions lists and an order for the Council to remove his name. The Council requests the rejection of the action and that OT bear the costs.
4. **Law:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court addresses the legal arguments.
* **Jurisdiction of the Court:** The Court first clarifies that it lacks the power to order the Council to remove OT’s name from the lists.
* **Substance:** The Court then examines the merits of OT’s claims, which are based on three main arguments:
* **Error of Assessment:** OT claims the Council incorrectly assessed the facts.
* **Violation of the Principle of Proportionality:** OT argues the sanctions are disproportionate.
* **Violation of the Rights of the Defence:** OT contends his rights were violated due to lack of access to evidence and failure to consider his arguments.
The Court analyzes each of these arguments in detail, examining the evidence and legal reasoning presented by both sides. It considers the reliability of the evidence, the criteria for imposing sanctions, and whether OT’s rights were properly respected.
5. **Costs:** The Court decides who should bear the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use:
* The Court dismisses OT’s action, upholding the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the sanctions lists.
* The Court finds that while the Council initially failed to provide OT with certain documents in a timely manner, this did not prejudice his ability to defend his rights.
* The Court emphasizes that it is up to the Council to justify the reasons for maintaining a person on the sanctions list, but the person concerned must provide evidence if their personal situation has changed.
* The Court confirms that the Council has a broad discretion in assessing whether the criteria for imposing sanctions are met, but this discretion is subject to judicial review.
* The Court finds that the measures taken against OT were not disproportionate, given the objectives of the sanctions regime.
* The Court clarifies the criteria for being considered an “influential businessman” and for operating in sectors that provide a substantial source of income to the Russian government, which are grounds for imposing sanctions.
**** This judgment is related to the EU’s policy regarding Ukraine and the restrictive measures taken against individuals and entities involved in actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. It has implications for Ukrainians and those doing business in or with Russia.
