This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Pavel Ezubov, a Russian businessman, in the context of actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Mr. Ezubov challenged the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the EU’s sanctions lists, arguing that the Council made an error in assessing that he was benefitting from his cousin, Oleg Deripaska, a leading Russian businessman already subject to sanctions. The General Court annulled the Council’s decisions, finding that the Council had not provided sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Ezubov’s name on the sanctions lists.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses an action brought by Mr. Ezubov against the Council of the European Union, seeking the annulment of Council Decisions (CFSP) 2024/847 and 2024/2456, as well as Council Implementing Regulations (EU) 2024/849 and 2024/2455. These acts prolonged the inclusion of Mr. Ezubov on the EU’s sanctions lists related to actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the initial imposition of sanctions in 2014 and subsequent amendments.
* It details the specific legal acts challenged by Mr. Ezubov and the grounds for his challenge.
* It presents the forms of order sought by both parties (Mr. Ezubov and the Council).
* The core of the judgment lies in the “Law” section, where the Court assesses Mr. Ezubov’s pleas, particularly focusing on the alleged error of assessment by the Council.
* The Court interprets the “benefitting” criterion under Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended, clarifying that it covers non-negligible benefits, regardless of their nature, and considers the objective of preventing circumvention of sanctions.
* The Court then applies this interpretation to Mr. Ezubov’s case, examining the evidence presented by the Council regarding the transfer of assets from Mr. Deripaska to Mr. Ezubov.
* Ultimately, the Court concludes that the Council has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Ezubov was “benefitting” from Mr. Deripaska in a way that justified maintaining his name on the sanctions lists.
* The judgment concludes by annulling the contested acts insofar as they concern Mr. Ezubov and ordering the Council to pay the costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The key provision at the heart of the judgment is Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended, which allows for the freezing of funds and economic resources of “leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them.”
The judgment provides important clarification on the interpretation of the term “benefitting” within the context of EU sanctions. It specifies that a “benefit” must be non-negligible and can be financial or non-financial. The Court emphasizes that the Council must demonstrate that the person subject to sanctions is actually taking advantage of the sanctioned individual, not vice versa.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
For those interested in EU sanctions law, particularly in the context of Ukraine, this judgment offers valuable insights into the standard of evidence required to justify the imposition of restrictive measures. It highlights the importance of a solid factual basis for sanctions decisions and clarifies the interpretation of the “benefitting” criterion. The judgment also underscores the need for the Council to demonstrate a direct link between the alleged benefit and the objectives of the sanctions regime.
**** This judgment has implications for Ukrainians, as it concerns the EU’s efforts to impose restrictive measures on individuals and entities contributing to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The judgment emphasizes the need for due process and a solid factual basis when imposing sanctions, which is crucial for ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of the EU’s response to the situation in Ukraine.
