This Court decision concerns the appeal of State Development Corporation “VEB.RF” against the judgment of the General Court, which rejected its application for annulment of several Council decisions and implementing regulations regarding restrictive measures against actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. These measures include the freezing of funds and the prohibition of providing specialized financial messaging services to certain Russian credit institutions. The Court examines whether the General Court erred in its assessment of the Council’s obligation to state reasons, the existence of errors of assessment, the violation of the right to property, the principle of equal treatment, and the right to effective judicial protection.
The structure of the act is as follows:
1. **Introduction**: Sets out the context of the appeal by State Development Corporation “VEB.RF” against the General Court’s judgment.
2. **Legal Framework and Background**: Summarizes the relevant Council Decisions (2014/145/PESC, 2014/512/PESC) and Regulations (EU) No 269/2014, (EU) No 833/2014) concerning restrictive measures against actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity, including amendments. It details the initial reasons for including VEB.RF in the lists of entities subject to these measures.
3. **Proceedings Before the General Court and the Contested Judgment**: Describes the initial proceedings where VEB.RF sought annulment of the restrictive measures, and the General Court rejected VEB.RF’s claims.
4. **Claims of the Parties in the Appeal**: Summarizes the arguments of VEB.RF, the Council, and the Commission. VEB.RF claims errors in the General Court’s assessment regarding the duty to state reasons, errors of assessment, violation of property rights, violation of equal treatment, and failure to recognize violations of the right to effective judicial protection.
5. **The Appeal**:
* **Admissibility**: The Court addresses the Commission’s claim that the appeal is inadmissible because it merely repeats arguments from the first instance. The Court clarifies that while an appeal must specifically identify errors of law, it can revisit legal points already examined.
* **First Plea**: Addresses whether the Council fulfilled its obligation to state reasons for the restrictive measures. The Court examines whether the reasons provided were sufficient for VEB.RF to understand why it was targeted, both under the initial acts and subsequent amendments.
* **Second Plea**: Examines whether the General Court correctly assessed that the Council did not commit errors of assessment. The Court reviews whether VEB.RF could be considered part of the Russian state and whether the Council adequately demonstrated that VEB.RF provided material or financial support to Russian decision-makers.
* **Third Plea**: Considers whether the General Court erred in not finding a violation of VEB.RF’s right to property. The Court assesses whether the restrictions were justified under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and whether they were proportionate.
* **Fourth Plea**: Assesses whether the General Court erred in concluding that VEB.RF had not demonstrated a violation of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
* **Fifth Plea**: Addresses whether the General Court erred in concluding that VEB.RF had not demonstrated a violation of its right to effective judicial protection or the existence of a misuse of power.
6. **Decision on Costs**: Determines that VEB.RF must bear its own costs as well as those of the Council, while the Commission must bear its own costs.
The main provisions of the act are the court’s rulings on the pleas raised by VEB.RF:
* The Court rejected the argument that the Council did not adequately state the reasons for including VEB.RF in the restrictive measures.
* The Court found no error in the General Court’s assessment that VEB.RF could be considered as providing support to actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity.
* The Court acknowledged an error in the General Court’s approach to assessing the violation of property rights but concluded that the restrictive measures were still justified under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
* The Court dismissed the pleas regarding violations of equal treatment, the right to effective judicial protection, and misuse of power as inadmissible or unfounded.
The most important provisions for its use are the court’s interpretations and applications of the legal standards for imposing restrictive measures, particularly regarding the duty to state reasons, the assessment of errors, and the justification for restricting fundamental rights such as the right to property.
**** This act is related to Ukraine and has implications to Ukraine and Ukrainians.
