Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 10 septembre 2025.#Tigran Khudaverdyan contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises eu égard aux actions compromettant ou menaçant l’intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté et l’indépendance de l’Ukraine – Gel des fonds – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques – Restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom du requérant sur les listes – Obligation de motivation – Droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective – Notion de “femme ou homme d’affaires ayant une activité dans des secteurs économiques qui fournissent une source substantielle de revenus au gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie” – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous g), de la décision 2014/145/PESC – Article 3, paragraphe 1, sous g), du règlement (UE) no 269/2014 – Exception d’illégalité – Erreur d’appréciation – Principe d’égalité de traitement et de non-discrimination – Proportionnalité – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-1116/23.

Here is a detailed description of the provisions of the act:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding the restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed on Tigran Khudaverdyan in connection with the situation in Ukraine. The court partially annuls the Council’s decision to maintain Mr. Khudaverdyan on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes and travel restrictions from September 2024, while dismissing his claims against earlier decisions from September 2023 and March 2024. The court also rejects Mr. Khudaverdyan’s claim for damages.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses Mr. Khudaverdyan’s challenge to the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the EU’s sanctions list, specifically concerning measures taken in response to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.

* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of the sanctions regime, including the initial listing of Mr. Khudaverdyan in March 2022 and subsequent decisions to prolong the measures. It also mentions amendments to the criteria for imposing sanctions.
* **Grounds for the Decision:** Mr. Khudaverdyan raised several arguments against the Council’s decisions, including:
* Illegality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions.
* Violation of his right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons.
* Errors in the Council’s assessment of the facts.
* Violation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
* Violation of the principle of proportionality.
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The court addresses each of Mr. Khudaverdyan’s arguments in detail.
* It rejects the claim that the criteria for imposing sanctions are illegal.
* It finds that the Council provided sufficient reasons for its decisions and did not violate Mr. Khudaverdyan’s rights of defense.
* However, the court agrees with Mr. Khudaverdyan that the Council made an error in its assessment of the facts regarding the decisions from September 2024. The court finds that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Khudaverdyan on the sanctions list after he resigned from his position at Yandex.
* The court rejects the claim that the sanctions violate the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
* The court finds that the sanctions are proportionate.
* **Damages Claim:** The court rejects Mr. Khudaverdyan’s claim for damages, finding that he did not provide sufficient evidence of actual damage.
* **Ruling:** The court annuls the Council’s decisions from September 2024 insofar as they concern Mr. Khudaverdyan, but dismisses his claims against the earlier decisions and his claim for damages.

**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Criteria for Sanctions:** The judgment clarifies the interpretation of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, particularly the criteria related to “leading businesspersons” and individuals involved in sectors providing a “substantial source of revenue” to the Russian government.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving that the criteria for imposing sanctions are met.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of effective judicial review of sanctions decisions and the need for the Council to provide a sufficiently solid factual basis for its decisions.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment confirms that sanctions must be proportionate to the objectives pursued and that the Council must take into account the individual circumstances of the person concerned.
* **Impact of Resignation:** The judgment highlights that the Council must reassess whether sanctions are still justified when a person resigns from a position that was the basis for the initial imposition of sanctions.
* **Evidence of Damage:** The judgment reiterates that a party seeking damages must provide concrete evidence of actual damage suffered.

: This act is related to Ukraine because it concerns restrictive measures taken by the EU in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence.

Full text by link