Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment in the SBK Art OOO v Council case:
**1. Essence of the Act**
This judgment concerns the legality of EU sanctions imposed on SBK Art OOO, a Russian company, due to its alleged association with Sberbank, which is itself subject to sanctions for supporting the Russian government’s actions against Ukraine. SBK Art OOO challenged the Council’s decisions to include and maintain its name on the EU’s list of sanctioned entities, arguing that the sanctions were unlawful. The General Court ultimately dismissed SBK Art OOO’s action, upholding the EU’s sanctions regime.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions**
The judgment addresses SBK Art OOO’s challenge to several Council decisions and implementing regulations that initially placed the company on the sanctions list and subsequently maintained its listing. The court examines the following key aspects:
* **Admissibility:** The Court first confirms the admissibility of the action against the relevant implementing regulations.
* **Evidence:** It then addresses the admissibility of additional evidence submitted late by SBK Art OOO, rejecting most of it.
* **Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union:** The Court rejects the applicant’s request under Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
* **Plea of Illegality:** SBK Art OOO argued that the “association criterion” used to justify its sanctions was unlawful. The Court rejected this, finding the criterion consistent with the EU’s objectives and the principle of legal certainty.
* **Right to be Heard:** SBK Art OOO claimed it was not given a proper opportunity to be heard before the sanctions were imposed and maintained. The Court found no breach of this right, distinguishing between the initial listing and subsequent renewals.
* **Error of Assessment:** SBK Art OOO argued the Council incorrectly assessed the facts, particularly regarding Sberbank’s continued control over the company. The Court disagreed, finding sufficient evidence to support the Council’s assessment that SBK Art OOO was associated with Sberbank.
* **Proportionality:** SBK Art OOO contended the sanctions were disproportionate. The Court found the sanctions appropriate and necessary to achieve the EU’s objectives in addressing the situation in Ukraine.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use**
* **The “Association Criterion”:** The judgment clarifies the scope and legality of using “association” with a sanctioned entity as a basis for imposing sanctions. This is a key tool in the EU’s sanctions regime.
* **Standard of Evidence:** The judgment reiterates the standard of evidence required for imposing and maintaining sanctions, emphasizing the need for a “sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence.”
* **Right to be Heard in Sanctions Cases:** The judgment clarifies the procedural rights of those targeted by sanctions, particularly the timing and extent of the right to be heard.
* **The extraterritorial application of EU sanctions:** The Court held that the sale of the applicant by Sberbank to the Emirati investor was subject to EU sanctions law because it involved the transfer of funds located within the territory of the European Union.
* **The principle of proportionality:** The Court found that the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue as a legal person associated with Sberbank and the resulting restrictive measures are necessary in order to achieve and implement the objectives referred to in Article 21 TEU.
**** This case is highly relevant to the EU’s response to the situation in Ukraine. It confirms the EU’s ability to target entities linked to those directly undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, even if the link is indirect. It also reinforces the EU’s broad discretion in defining and implementing its sanctions regime.
