Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2024:444
Date: 2024-07-03
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 3 July 2024 (*) (Action for annulment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds and economic resources – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Reference to the applicant’s name in the grounds for including another person’s name on the list – No act adversely affecting the applicant – Inadmissibility) In Case T‑293/23, EuroChem Group AG, established in Zug (Switzerland), represented by G. Forwood and J. Killic, lawyers, applicant, v Council of the European Union, represented by A. Antoniadis and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents, and by E. Raoult, lawyer, defendant, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber), composed of D. Spielmann, President, I. Gâlea (Rapporteur) and S.L. Kalėda, Judges, Registrar: V. Di Bucci, having regard to the written part of the procedure, makes the following Order 1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, EuroChem Group AG, seeks annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1) (‘the March 2023 acts’); (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/811 of 13 April 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 67) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/806 of 13 April 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 101, p. 1) (‘the April 2023 acts’), in so far as those acts mention the applicant’s name in the grounds thereof; and (iii) all decisions and all implementing regulations of the Council of the European Union subsequent to the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts in so far as they concern the applicant. Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is a company established in Switzerland, and is active in the market for mineral fertilizers. 3 The present case arises in the context of the restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. 4 On 17 March 2014, the Council of the European Union adopted, pursuant to Article 29 TEU, Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16). That same day, it adopted, pursuant to Article 215 TFEU, Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6). 5 On 24 February 2022, the President of the Russian Federation announced a military operation in Ukraine and, on the same day, Russian armed forces attacked Ukraine at several locations in the country. 6 On 25 February 2022, in view of the gravity of the situation, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1) and Regulation (EU) 2022/330 amending Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1) in order, inter alia, to amend the criteria according to which natural or legal persons, entities or bodies could be subject to restrictive measures. 7 Article 2(1) and (2) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, provides as follows: ‘1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by: (a) natural persons responsible for, supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, or stability or security in Ukraine, or which obstruct the work of international organisations in Ukraine; … (d) natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine; … (f) natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine; or (g) leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen. 2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.’ 8 The detailed rules governing that freezing of funds are laid down in the subsequent paragraphs of Article 2 of Decision 2014/145. 9 Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, provides for the adoption of measures for the freezing of funds in terms essentially identical to those of Decision 2014/145, as amended. Article 3(1)(a) to (g) of that regulation essentially reproduces Article 2(1)(a) to (g) of that decision. 10 Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, provides as follows: ‘1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, or natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex I, shall be frozen. 2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, or natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in Annex I.’ 11 On 9 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 31) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 1), by which it added the names of several persons, including Mr Andrey Melnichenko, to the lists of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in the annex to Decision 2014/145 and in Annex I to Regulation No 269/2014 (‘the lists at issue’). 12 On 15 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 44) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 1), by which it added the names of several persons to the lists at issue, including Mr Vladimir Rashevsky. 13 On 3 June 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 92) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 15), by which it added the names of several persons to the lists at issue, including Mrs Aleksandra Melnichenko. 14 On 14 September 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1), by which it extended the restrictive measures taken against Mr Rashevsky and against Mr and Mrs Melnichenko until 15 March 2023, without amending the grounds for including their names on the lists at issue. 15 On 13 March 2023, the Council adopted the March 2023 acts by which it extended the restrictive measures laid down by Decision 2014/145 and Regulation No 269/2014 until 15 September 2023. 16 By the March 2023 acts, first, the name of Mr Rashevsky was maintained on the lists at issue on the following grounds: ‘Vladimir Rashevsky is the former CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG, having formally resigned from that position when listed under restrictive measures by the Union, whilst he continues to exert influence through shell companies. EuroChem is one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers. Previously (between 2004 and 2020) he was the CEO of a coal company JSC SUEK. These are major Russian companies – co-owned by Aleksandra Melnichenko, the wife of Russian billionaire Andrei Melnichenko – which generate and provide substantial revenue to the Russian Government. They also cooperate with Russian authorities, including Vladimir Putin. EuroChem Group companies supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas. SUEK signed contracts with Crimean sanatoriums for employee’s health programs. He is therefore supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine. On 24 February 2022, Rashevsky attended a meeting of oligarchs at the Kremlin with Vladimir Putin to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of Western sanctions. The fact that he was invited to attend that meeting shows that he is a member of the inner circle of oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin and that he is supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as well as stability and security in Ukraine.’ 17 Secondly, the name of Mr Melnichenko was maintained on the lists at issue on the following grounds: ‘Andrey Igorevich Melnichenko is a Russian industrialist and former owner of major fertiliser producer EuroChem Group and coal company SUEK. Since 9 March 2022, Melnichenko transferred his shares in SUEK and Eurochem Group to his spouse, Aleksandra Melnichenko. In January 2022, President Vladimir Putin agreed to guarantee the export of nine million tons of coal from Khakassia, Buryatia and Tuva, in support of SUEK, the main exporter from those regions. He continues to benefit from the wealth he transferred to his wife. A. Melnichenko belongs to the most influential circle of Russian businesspeople with close connections to the Russian Government. On 24 February 2022, in the aftermath of the initial stages of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, Andrey Igorevich Melnichenko, along with other 36 businesspeople, met with President Vladimir Putin and other members of the Russian government to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of Western sanctions, thus exemplifying his role as a member of Vladimir Putin’s closest circle. That special invitation shows that he is supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as well as stability and security in Ukraine. Moreover, he is a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of Russia, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.’ 18 Thirdly, the name of Mrs Melnichenko was maintained on the lists at issue on the following grounds: ‘Aleksandra Melnichenko is the wife of Andrey Igorevich Melnichenko, a Russian industrialist who transferred the ownership of the major fertiliser producer EuroChem Group and the coal company SUEK to her on 9 March 2022. Aleksandra Melnichenko is now the beneficial owner of these companies. Aleksandra Melnichenko takes good advantage of the fortune and benefits from the wealth of her husband. Together with him, she owns two penthouses with a value of more than USD 30 million. In March 2022, Aleksandra Melnichenko replaced her husband as the beneficial owner of Firstline Trust, managed by Linetrust PTC Ltd, a company which represents the ultimate owner of EuroChem Group. Therefore, she is associated with a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine. Furthermore, Andrey Igorevich Melnichenko is supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as well as stability and security in Ukraine.’ 19 On 14 April 2023, the Council adopted the April 2023 acts, by which it updated the grounds for including the names of several persons on the lists at issue, including Mrs Melnichenko, in respect of whom it relied on the following grounds: ‘Aleksandra Melnichenko is the wife of Andrey Igorevich Melnichenko, a Russian industrialist who transferred his effective ownership and benefit of the major fertiliser producer EuroChem Group and the coal company SUEK to her on 9 March 2022. Aleksandra Melnichenko takes advantage of the fortune and benefits from the wealth of her husband. In March 2022, Aleksandra Melnichenko replaced her husband as the beneficial owner of Firstline Trust, managed by Linetrust PTC Ltd, a company which represents the ultimate owner of EuroChem Group. Therefore, she is associated with a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.’ Forms of order sought 20 The applicant claims that the Court should: – annul the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, in so far as they mention the applicant’s name in the grounds thereof; – annul all subsequent decisions and implementing regulations of the Council which state that the applicant is owned or controlled by persons subject to restrictive measures; – in the alternative, if the plea of inadmissibility is upheld, declare that (i) the reference to the applicant’s name in the statements of reasons for the lists at issue does not impose any obligation on EU operators or the authorities of the Member States requiring them to consider the applicant to be ‘co-owned’ by Mr and Mrs Melnichenko, and (ii) those operators and authorities remain free to make their own determination as to whether the applicant is owned by persons whose names are included on the lists at issue and whether a transaction is caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended; – order the Council to pay the costs. 21 In its plea of inadmissibility raised under Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Council contends that the Court should: – dismiss the action as inadmissible; – order the applicant to pay the costs. Law 22 Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action, it may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. Furthermore, under Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, on application by the defendant, the Court may decide on inadmissibility or lack of competence without going to the substance of the case. 23 In the present case, the Court, taking the view that it has sufficient information from the material in the case file, has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings. The form of order sought in the alternative, submitted for the first time in the observations on the plea of inadmissibility 24 In its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, the applicant submits for the first time a form of order sought in the alternative. By that form of order, the applicant requests that the Court, in essence, declare that (i) the reference to its name in the statements of reasons for the lists at issue does not impose any obligation on EU operators or the authorities of the Member States requiring them to consider the applicant to be ‘co-owned’ by Mr and Mrs Melnichenko, and (ii) those operators and authorities remain free to make their own determination as to whether the applicant is owned by persons whose names are included on the lists at issue and whether a transaction is caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended. 25 In that regard, it should be recalled that in proceedings before the Courts of the European Union, there is no remedy whereby the Courts can adopt a position by means of a general declaration or statement of principle (see judgment of 21 March 2012, Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council, T‑439/10 and T‑440/10, EU:T:2012:142, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). 26 In the present case, it follows from the wording of the request described in paragraph 24 above that, by that request, the applicant is asking the Court to give a ruling in the abstract. 27 Consequently, the form of order sought in the alternative, submitted for the first time in the observations on the plea of inadmissibility, must be rejected on the ground that the Court clearly lacks jurisdiction to hear and rule on that form of order. The principal form of order, seeking annulment of future acts 28 The applicant seeks annulment in part of all the decisions and implementing regulations of the Council subsequent to the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, which amend or annul those acts, in so far as they affect the applicant by mentioning its name in statements of reasons relating to persons included on the lists at issue. 29 The Council disputes the admissibility of that claim. 30 In that regard, it is clear from the case-law that the Court’s review is confined to acts already adopted and identified with sufficient precision by the applicant, and that the speculative review of the lawfulness of hypothetical acts which have not yet been adopted is not permitted (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 September 2013, Anbouba v Council, T‑592/11, not published, EU:T:2013:427, paragraphs 33 and 34 and the case-law cited). 31 Consequently, the claim seeking annulment of the Council’s subsequent decisions and regulations, reproduced in the second indent of paragraph 20 above, must be rejected as inadmissible. The principal form of order, seeking annulment in part of the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, in so far as they mention the applicant’s name in the grounds thereof 32 The Council contends that the claim for annulment in part of the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts is inadmissible. 33 In that connection, the Council submits that although it relied on grounds relating to the applicant in the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, those grounds are merely observations intended to support the individual inclusion of the names of Mr Rashevsky and of Mr and Mrs Melnichenko on the lists at issue. Accordingly, the applicant does not challenge the operative part of those acts, but only part of the grounds thereof which do not produce binding legal effects in relation to it. That means, moreover, that the applicant has no interest in bringing proceedings or standing to bring proceedings against those acts. 34 The applicant challenges the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council and maintains that it is entitled to seek annulment in part of the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts as they contain, in the grounds for including the names of Mr Rashevsky and of Mr and Mrs Melnichenko on the lists at issue, incorrect factual statements to the effect that Mr Rashevsky continues to exert influence over the applicant, Mr Melnichenko is its former owner and Mrs Melnichenko its current owner (‘the contested statements’). 35 According to the applicant, it is therefore treated in the same way as a person owned or controlled by a person whose name is included on the lists at issue, with the result that, under Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, first, the authorities of the Member States are required to freeze its funds and economic resources and have no scope for interpretation in that regard, and, secondly, EU economic operators are prohibited from making funds available to it or for its benefit. 36 In the first place, the applicant argues that, on account of the contested statements, some EU economic operators decided to sever their contractual relations with it or to forgo entering into such relations. According to the applicant, were it not for the contested statements in the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, there would be no other assessment by the Council pointing to its being owned or controlled by persons whose names are included on the lists at issue. As a result, EU economic operators treat it as if it were targeted by the restrictive measures taken against those persons. 37 In the same vein, the applicant claims that, on account of the contested statements, national authorities are reluctant to unfreeze some of its assets, since those assets are treated as funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by persons whose names are included on the lists at issue, as provided for in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended. It thus submits that the contested statements establish a presumption of ownership which the authorities of the Member States and EU economic operators are required to apply. 38 In the second place, the applicant states that its situation is different from the situation which gave rise to the order of 7 September 2022, Prigozhin v Council (T‑75/22, not published, EU:T:2022:534), since the applicant in that case was said to finance an entity subject to restrictive measures, which could not result in him being regarded as being subject to restrictive measures himself. 39 In the third place, the applicant claims that the references to its name in the statements of reasons in question are contradictory, factually incorrect and cause irreparable damage to its business. 40 According to settled case-law, measures the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his or her legal position may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU (see judgment of 12 September 2006, Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission, C‑131/03 P, EU:C:2006:541, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited). 41 Moreover, only the operative part of an act is capable of producing binding legal effects (see judgment of 24 March 2011, Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission, T‑443/08 and T‑455/08, EU:T:2011:117, paragraph 223 and the case-law cited). 42 In the present case, the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts seek, inter alia, to maintain the listing of the names of the persons subject to restrictive measures included on the lists at issue. In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that the names of Mr Rashevsky and of Mr and Mrs Melnichenko are included on the lists at issue but the applicant’s name is not, since it is not ‘listed’, within the meaning of Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145, as amended, in the annex to that decision, or ‘listed’, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, in Annex I to that regulation. The applicant’s name is mentioned only in the contested statements in connection with the maintenance on the lists at issue of the names of Mr Rashevsky and of Mr and Mrs Melnichenko. 43 In addition, it should be noted that, as the applicant expressly stated in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, it does not seek annulment of the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts in so far as they maintain the names of Mr Rashevsky and of Mr and Mrs Melnichenko on the lists at issue, but only annulment thereof in so far as they affect the applicant by mentioning its name in the contested statements. 44 Thus, what the applicant in fact seeks is the deletion of the contested statements in the grounds for listing relied on in respect of those three natural persons in the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, which mention the applicant’s name, given that, according to the applicant, those statements automatically entail the taking of restrictive measures against it by portraying it as being owned by, being a source of benefit to, or being controlled by the persons whose names are included on the lists at issue. 45 In the first place, however, it should be pointed out that the contested statements are intended solely to support the individual restrictive measures taken against Mr Rashevsky and against Mr and Mrs Melnichenko, namely the freezing of their funds and the ban on their entering or transiting through the territory of the Member States. In that regard, under Article 4(1) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, the lists at issue must include the grounds justifying the listing of the persons covered by the restrictive measures. 46 Thus, the contested statements cannot in themselves constitute the definition of a legally binding position in relation to the applicant, whose name the Council did not include on the lists at issue with a view to the imposition of restrictive measures on it (see paragraph 42 above). 47 In the second place, concerning the applicant’s argument that the contested statements produce legal effects vis-à-vis it, by means of Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, it should be noted that, under Article 2(1) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, funds and economic resources ‘owned, held or controlled’ by persons whose names are included on the lists at issue must be frozen. Moreover, in accordance with Article 2(2) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Article 2(2) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, no funds or economic resources are to be ‘made available’, ‘directly or indirectly’, ‘to or for the benefit’ of the persons whose names are included on the lists at issue. 48 Those provisions mean in principle, first, that funds and economic resources of legal persons and entities owned, held or controlled by persons whose names are included on the lists at issue must be frozen by the competent authorities of the Member States and, secondly, that EU economic operators are prohibited from making funds available to or for the benefit of such legal persons and entities. Thus, that freezing of funds and economic resources and that prohibition on making funds and economic resources available stem from the provisions of Article 2 of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended. 49 Accordingly, it is only the operative part concerning the inclusion or maintenance of a person’s name on the lists at issue which, by virtue of Article 2 of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, produces legal effects on legal persons and entities owned, held or controlled by such a person, as described in paragraph 48 above. In that regard, the fact that a legal person or an entity is owned, held or controlled by a person whose name is included on the lists at issue must be established, in the case of the freezing of funds and economic resources, by the authorities of the Member States, and, where appropriate, in the case of the prohibition laid down in Article 2(2) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, by the persons required to comply with those provisions. 50 In those circumstances, contrary to what the applicant claims, the contested statements cannot be regarded as affecting its legal position by requiring the authorities of the Member States to freeze its funds and economic resources and by prohibiting EU economic operators from making funds and economic resources available to it or for its benefit. 51 Consequently, it is also necessary to reject the applicant’s argument that its situation is different from that at issue in the order of 7 September 2022, Prigozhin v Council (T‑75/22, not published, EU:T:2022:534), in which the applicant in that case had been described only as financing an entity subject to restrictive measures in the grounds relied on against that entity, not as being owned by or belonging to such an entity. In common with the part of the grounds challenged in the case which gave rise to that order, the contested statements in the present case do not produce legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant (see paragraph 50 above). 52 In the third place, the Court cannot endorse the applicant’s reliance on the fact that some national authorities considered it to be subject to restrictive measures, based on a presumption, arising from the contested statements, that it is owned or controlled by persons whose names are included on the lists at issue. 53 It is true that, according to the documents submitted by the applicant in support of that argument, the competent authorities of several Member States took measures against some of the applicant’s subsidiaries to freeze their funds and economic resources. However, those same documents show that, in taking such measures, those authorities reached an independent view, based on information gathered by their internal departments, that the subsidiaries in question were owned, held or controlled by persons whose names were included on the lists at issue, without believing themselves to be bound by the contested statements. 54 Moreover, the applicant also produces documents from the competent authorities of other Member States which, despite the contested statements, took the view that some of its subsidiaries were not owned, held or controlled by one or more persons whose names were included on the lists at issue, so that those subsidiaries should not be subject to measures freezing their funds and economic resources. 55 In the fourth place, concerning the decision by some operators to break off contractual relations with the applicant, it is true that the applicant made clear in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility that several companies had terminated their contractual relations with it on the basis of the contested statements. 56 However, as has been stated in paragraph 50 above, the contested statements do not in themselves impose any obligation on EU economic operators as regards their conduct towards the applicant. 57 In addition, the wording of letters sent by some of those operators shows that they were able to adopt such business decisions independently, taking the view, based on the information available to them, that the applicant was owned, held or controlled by a person whose name was included on the lists at issue. Moreover, the applicant confirms such independence where it states that those operators ‘consider’ that the contested statements prevent them from doing business with the applicant, or that those operators ‘are interpreting’ the contested statements as requiring them to terminate their contractual arrangements with it. 58 In any event, the fact that some economic operators may have been swayed by the contested statements in deciding to sever their business ties with companies in the group headed by the applicant, or to forgo such ties, does not mean that, for that reason alone, those statements affect the applicant’s legal position, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 40 above (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 21 September 2012, TI Media Broadcasting and TI Media v Commission, T‑501/10, not published, EU:T:2012:460, paragraph 62). 59 It follows from the foregoing that the contested statements, contained in the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, do not produce legal effects which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position. 60 Thus, in so far as it seeks annulment in part of the March 2023 acts and the April 2023 acts, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible on the ground that there is no act against which an action for annulment may be brought, without it being necessary to examine the other pleas of inadmissibility raised by the Council. 61 Accordingly, the present action must be dismissed, in part, as having been brought before a court clearly lacking in jurisdiction to hear and rule on that action, and, in part, as inadmissible. 62 Consequently, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application submitted by the Republic of Estonia for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council, or on the application made by Mr and Mrs Melnichenko for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant, in accordance with Article 142(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Costs 63 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 64 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the form of order sought by the Council. 65 Under Article 144(10) of the Rules of Procedure, the Republic of Estonia and Mr and Mrs Melnichenko are to bear their own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed. 2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Republic of Estonia and by Mr Andrey Melnichenko and Mrs Aleksandra Melnichenko. 3. EuroChem Group AG shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. 4. The Republic of Estonia and Mr and Mrs Melnichenko shall bear their own costs. Luxembourg, 3 July 2024. V. Di Bucci D. Spielmann Registrar President * Language of the case: English.