This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal concerning restrictive measures against Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko, specifically the freezing of funds and economic resources due to the situation in Ukraine. The appeal challenges an amendment to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, which imposed an obligation on persons subject to fund-freezing measures to report their funds and economic resources. The CJEU dismisses the appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision that the Council acted within its powers by imposing this reporting obligation.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the legal context, including Regulation No 269/2014 and its amendments, particularly concerning restrictive measures in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It details the specific measures taken against the Timchenkos, including the freezing of their assets.
2. **The contested reporting obligation:** The core of the dispute revolves around Article 9 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, which requires individuals listed in Annex I (i.e., those subject to sanctions) to report their funds and economic resources within the jurisdiction of EU Member States. Failure to comply is considered a circumvention of the restrictive measures.
3. **Grounds of appeal:** The appellants argued that the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting Article 215 TFEU and the Rosneft judgment, claiming the Council exceeded its powers by imposing the reporting obligation without it being explicitly provided for in a CFSP decision. They also argued that the General Court did not give sufficient reasons to address their argument that the Council exceeded its powers.
4. **Decision:** The CJEU rejects both grounds of appeal. It clarifies the division of powers between Article 29 TEU (CFSP decisions) and Article 215 TFEU (implementation of restrictive measures). The Court finds that the reporting obligation is not a new restrictive measure but an implementing measure designed to ensure the uniform and effective application of existing fund-freezing measures across the EU. The Court emphasizes that the Council has the power to adopt measures necessary to implement CFSP decisions, even if those measures entail obligations to act, to ensure the effectiveness of the sanctions regime.
The most important provisions for practical use are:
* **Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014:** This article establishes the core restrictive measure of freezing funds and economic resources of listed individuals and entities.
* **Article 9(2) of Regulation No 269/2014 (as amended):** This provision imposes the obligation on listed individuals and entities to report their funds and economic resources to the competent authorities in Member States. This is the central point of contention in the case.
* **Article 215 TFEU and Article 29 TEU:** These articles define the legal basis and division of powers between the EU’s foreign policy decisions and the implementation of restrictive measures.
**** This judgment confirms the EU’s broad powers to implement restrictive measures in response to the situation in Ukraine, including imposing obligations on individuals subject to sanctions to report their assets. This has direct implications for individuals and entities listed in Annex I of Regulation No 269/2014, as they must comply with the reporting obligation to avoid being considered as circumventing the sanctions.
