This is a judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of November 26, 2025, in Case T-608/24, between Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev and the Council of the European Union. The case concerns restrictive measures (asset freeze) imposed by the EU against individuals and entities undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment addresses Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev’s challenge to the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes due to his alleged association with actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. The General Court dismisses Bazhaev’s application, upholding the Council’s decision to keep him on the sanctions list. The court finds that the Council did not commit an error in assessing that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF, a sanctioned entity, and that the restrictive measures were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Introduction:** Identifies the applicant (Bazhaev) and the defendant (Council), and outlines the legal basis of the action (Article 263 TFEU).
* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the context of EU restrictive measures against those undermining Ukraine’s integrity, including previous decisions and regulations that led to Bazhaev’s initial listing and subsequent renewals.
* **Facts Subsequent to the Introduction of the Action:** Notes the Council’s decision in March 2025 to renew the restrictive measures against Bazhaev for another six months.
* **Conclusions of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s request for annulment of the Council’s decisions and the Council’s request for dismissal of the action.
* **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment and is divided into the following parts:
* **First Plea: Error of Assessment:** Addresses Bazhaev’s argument that the Council erred in considering that he met the criteria for sanctions, specifically concerning his being an “influential businessperson operating in Russia” and his “association” with VEB.RF.
* **Preliminary Considerations:** Sets out the standard of judicial review applicable to EU sanctions decisions.
* **Application of the Association Criterion:** Examines whether the Council was justified in concluding that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF. The court upholds the Council’s assessment, finding that Bazhaev’s connection to VEB.RF through Russian Platinum, a major mining company, demonstrated common interests and justified the sanctions.
* **Second Plea: Violation of the Principle of Proportionality and Fundamental Rights:** Addresses Bazhaev’s argument that the sanctions violated his fundamental rights, including the right to property and the presumption of innocence, and that they were disproportionate. The court rejects these arguments, finding that the sanctions were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights.
* **Request for Adoption of a Measure of Organisation of Procedure:** Rejects the Council’s request for the applicant to produce additional documents.
* **Costs:** Orders Bazhaev to pay the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment primarily concerns the application of existing EU sanctions legislation to a specific individual. It does not introduce new legislation or amend existing rules. The key provision at issue is Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended, which allows for sanctions against “influential businesspersons operating in Russia” and those “involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.” The judgment also interprets the concept of “association” as a basis for sanctions.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are:
* **Interpretation of “Association”:** The court clarifies that the “association” criterion does not require a formal legal or economic link but can be based on common interests.
* **Standard of Judicial Review:** The judgment reiterates the standard of judicial review for EU sanctions decisions, emphasizing the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis.
* **Proportionality and Fundamental Rights:** The court confirms that asset freezes are a legitimate restriction on the right to property, provided they are proportionate and pursue a legitimate objective.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment confirms that the burden of proof lies with the Council to establish the grounds for sanctions, but it does not need to produce all the information.
: This judgment is relevant to the EU’s sanctions regime concerning actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It clarifies the scope and application of the sanctions criteria, particularly concerning “association” with sanctioned entities. This has implications for individuals and entities doing business in or with Russia, as they could be subject to sanctions if they are deemed to be associated with individuals or entities involved in actions against Ukraine.
