# C_2019093EN.01002502.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/25

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO, against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on13 September 2018 in Case T-734/14: VTB Bank v Council

(Case C-729/18 P)

(2019/C 93/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO (represented by: M. Lester QC, J. Dawid, Barristers, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal of VTB against the decision of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal of VTB against the decision of the General Court;

| — | order that the restrictive acts be annulled insofar as they apply to VTB; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the restrictive acts be annulled insofar as they apply to VTB;

| — | make a declaration of illegality / inapplicability as regards article 1 of Council decision 2014/512/CFSP (1), article 5 of regulation 833/2014 (2), article 1 of Council decision 2014/659/CFSP (3), and article 1(5) of regulation 960/2014 (4); |
| --- | --- |

—

make a declaration of illegality / inapplicability as regards article 1 of Council decision 2014/512/CFSP (1), article 5 of regulation 833/2014 (2), article 1 of Council decision 2014/659/CFSP (3), and article 1(5) of regulation 960/2014 (4);

| — | order the Council to pay VTB’s costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay VTB’s costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging:

The General Court erred in its interpretation of article 5(1)(a) of the regulation in concluding that the condition that an institution have ‘an explicit mandate to promote competitiveness of the Russian economy, its diversification and encouragement of investment’ did not apply to VTB as a ‘major credit institution’. In consequence, the General Court erred in holding that the Council made no manifest error of assessment in finding that VTB satisfied the conditions to be listed under article 5(1)(a) of the regulation.

Second plea in law, alleging:

The General Court erred in finding that the criteria under which VTB was listed pursuant to article 1 of the decision and article 5(1)(a) of the regulation were appropriate and proportionate having regard to the objectives of the restrictive acts.

Third plea in law, alleging:

The General Court erred in finding that the restrictive acts applied to VTB represented a proportionate interference with VTB’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by article 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and article 1, protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both in respect of the criteria adopted under the restrictive acts and the decision to list VTB pursuant to those criteria.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 229, p. 13).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 229, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 271, p. 54).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 271, p. 3).

---