Here’s a breakdown of the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of German Khan v. Council of the European Union:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This judgment concerns the legality of the EU Council’s decisions to maintain German Khan’s name on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze) due to actions undermining or threatening Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The Tribunal dismisses Khan’s appeal, upholding the Council’s decisions. The judgment addresses various legal arguments raised by Khan, including the legality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, the right to be heard, and the proportionality of the measures.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of EU restrictive measures against individuals and entities in response to the situation in Ukraine, starting with Decision 2014/145/PESC and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. It details the initial listing of Khan in March 2022 and subsequent decisions to prolong his inclusion on the list.
* **Grounds for the Decision:** The Council’s reasons for maintaining Khan on the list evolved over time, initially citing his ties to the Alfa Group conglomerate, his close relationship with Vladimir Putin, and his involvement in sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian government. Later justifications included his participation in a Russian industrialists’ congress and the activities of Alfa Group subsidiaries.
* **Khan’s Arguments:** Khan challenged the Council’s decisions on multiple grounds, including:
* Violation of essential procedural requirements and the obligation for periodic review.
* Errors in assessing the facts and applying the relevant criteria.
* The alleged illegality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions (specifically, Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/PESC and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, both in their original and amended forms).
* Violation of the principle of proportionality.
* **Tribunal’s Reasoning:** The Tribunal systematically addresses each of Khan’s arguments, rejecting them. Key points include:
* The Council fulfilled its obligation to periodically review Khan’s situation and provide him with the opportunity to be heard.
* The Council had sufficient evidence to support its assessment that Khan met the criteria for sanctions, particularly regarding his influence in the Russian economy and his involvement in sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian government.
* The criteria used for imposing sanctions were not illegal or disproportionate.
* The measures did not violate Khan’s fundamental rights, such as the right to property and freedom to conduct a business.
* **Decision:** The Tribunal dismisses Khan’s appeal and orders him to pay the costs.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving the grounds for imposing sanctions, but it also acknowledges the difficulty of accessing evidence in certain situations, allowing for a degree of flexibility in the standard of proof.
* **Periodic Review:** The judgment clarifies the scope of the Council’s obligation to periodically review sanctions, emphasizing that it must conduct an updated assessment of the situation and consider the impact of the measures.
* **Criteria for Sanctions:** The judgment provides insight into the interpretation of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, particularly regarding the concept of “influential businesspersons” and the requirement that they be involved in sectors providing a “substantial source of revenue” to the Russian government.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment emphasizes that restrictive measures must be proportionate to the objectives pursued, but it also recognizes the importance of those objectives, such as maintaining peace and international security, which may justify significant negative consequences for individuals.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The judgment confirms that fundamental rights, such as the right to property and freedom to conduct a business, are not absolute and may be subject to limitations justified by objectives of general interest.
: This act is related to the EU’s sanctions regime concerning actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. It has implications for individuals and entities targeted by these sanctions, including Ukrainians.
