This is the judgment of the General Court regarding the case T-1113/23, involving Aleksandra Melnichenko and the Council of the European Union.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns Ms. Melnichenko’s challenge to the EU Council’s decisions to maintain her on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel restrictions) due to her connection to her husband, Andrey Melnichenko, a Russian businessman. The General Court dismisses Ms. Melnichenko’s action, upholding the Council’s decisions. The court rejects her claims that the criteria for sanctions are unlawful, that the Council made errors in its assessment, and that her fundamental rights were infringed.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses the following key aspects:
* **Background:** It outlines the history of the restrictive measures imposed by the EU in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including the initial listing of Ms. Melnichenko and subsequent renewals.
* **Grounds for Listing:** The Council’s justification for including Ms. Melnichenko on the list is that she is the wife of Andrey Melnichenko, who transferred ownership of major companies to her, and that she benefits from his wealth, specifically through her position as the beneficial owner of Firstline Trust.
* **Pleas of Illegality:** Ms. Melnichenko raises several pleas, including the illegality of the criteria used to justify the sanctions, errors in the Council’s assessment, and infringement of her fundamental rights.
* **Court’s Analysis:** The General Court systematically addresses each of Ms. Melnichenko’s pleas, ultimately rejecting them. The court finds that the Council had a sufficient factual basis for its decisions and that the restrictive measures are proportionate to the objectives pursued.
* **Interveners:** Siberian Coal Energy Company AO (SUEK) and EuroChem Group AG intervened in support of Ms. Melnichenko, but the court also rejects their arguments.
**Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Criterion for Sanctions:** The judgment clarifies the interpretation and application of the criteria used to impose sanctions, particularly the concept of “benefiting from a leading businessperson operating in Russia.”
* **Burden of Proof:** The court reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving that the reasons for imposing sanctions are well-founded.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of effective judicial review of EU acts imposing restrictive measures.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The court acknowledges the need to respect fundamental rights but finds that the limitations imposed by the sanctions are justified and proportionate in this case.
* **Periodic Reviews:** The judgment highlights the Council’s obligation to conduct periodic reviews of restrictive measures to ensure that they remain justified.
**** This judgment is related to the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
