Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:1065
Date: 2025-11-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment

summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons – or, at the very least, one of those reasons deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision – are substantiated (judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119, and of 5 November 2014, Mayaleh v Council, T‑307/12 and T‑408/13, EU:T:2014:926, paragraph 128). 80 That assessment must be carried out by examining the evidence and information not in isolation but in their context. The Council discharges the burden of proof borne by it if it presents to the Courts of the European Union a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to establish that there is a sufficient link between the entity subject to a measure freezing its funds and the regime or, in general, the situations, being combated (see judgment of 20 July 2017, Badica and Kardiam v Council, T‑619/15, EU:T:2017:532, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited). 81 It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded. It is necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied on against the person concerned (judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraphs 121 and 122, and of 3 July 2014, National Iranian Tanker Company v Council, T‑565/12, EU:T:2014:608, paragraph 57). 82 In that regard, the Court points out that the context of the measures at issue must be taken into account and the standard of proof which may be required of the Council must be adapted in the light of the difficulty of obtaining evidence and objective information (see judgment of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v Council, T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 102 and the case-law cited). 83 It should also be noted that the activity of the Courts of the European Union is governed by the principle of the unfettered assessment of the evidence, and it is only the reliability of the evidence before the Court which is decisive when it comes to the assessment of its value. In order to assess the probative value of a document, regard should be had to the credibility of the account it contains and, in particular, to the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on its face, the document appears to be sound and reliable (see judgment of 31 May 2018, Kaddour v Council, T‑461/16, EU:T:2018:316, paragraph 107 and the case-law cited). 84 Moreover, it should be borne in mind that restrictive measures are measures of a precautionary and, by definition, provisional nature, the validity of which always depends on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to persist with them in order to achieve their objective. It is thus for the Council, in the course of its periodic review of those restrictive measures, to conduct an updated assessment of the situation and to appraise the impact of such measures, in order to determine whether they have made it possible to attain the objectives pursued by the initial inclusion of the names of the persons and entities concerned on the lists at issue or whether the same conclusion in respect of those persons and entities can still be drawn (judgment of 12 February 2020, Amisi Kumba v Council, T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraphs 58 and 59). 85 Lastly, the Court recalls that, in accordance with settled case-law, the legality of an EU act must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the act was adopted (see judgments of 3 September 2015, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Commission, C‑398/13 P, EU:C:2015:535, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited, and of 4 September 2015, NIOC and Others v Council, T‑577/12, not published, EU:T:2015:596, paragraph 112 and the case-law cited). 86 It is in the light of those considerations that it is necessary to ascertain whether the Council committed errors of assessment in deciding to maintain the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. 87 In the present case, it should be observed that, in order to justify the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, the Council relied on the evidence contained in the first WK file and in the second and third WK files. 88 The first WK file contains the following evidence: – a judgment of the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands) dated 6 September 2022 (exhibit No 1); – a document from Kroll Issuer Services Ltd dated 5 April 2022 (exhibit No 2); – a screenshot from the website of the Fortenova Group (exhibit No 3); – an extract from the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities dated 14 September 2022 (exhibit No 4); – an extract from the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities dated 3 November 2022 (exhibit No 5); – an article from the news agency Reuters published on 3 November 2022 (exhibit No 6); – a press article from Euractiv published on 8 November 2022 (exhibit No 7); – a press article from Bloomberg News published on 21 November 2022 (exhibit No 8); – a press release published on the website of the Fortenova Group on 12 March 2021 (exhibit No 9); – a screenshot from the website of the Fortenova Group (exhibit No 10); – a screenshot from the website of the GFC Media Group (exhibit No 11); – an article from the newspaper Večernji list published on 8 November 2022 (exhibit No 12). 89 The first WK file also contains several documents grouped under the heading ‘Further exhibits’ containing the following: – pleadings lodged in proceedings between an Emirati investor and, inter alia, the Fortenova Group before the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) and the annexes thereto, namely a letter from the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs dated 25 November 2022, an extract from the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities concerning the applicant dated 31 October 2022, a receipt dated 31 October 2022 recording a payment made to Sberbank by the special purpose vehicle used by the Emirati investor, an extract from the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities concerning that special purpose vehicle dated 22 November 2022, a statement by the Emirati investor dated 22 November 2022, a letter from the Fortenova Group to the applicant dated 22 November 2022, and the 2021 annual report of Fortenova Group TopCo; – an email dated 20 November 2022 from the Emirati investor to Fortenova Group STAK; – a memorandum from a law firm dated 14 December 2022 addressed to the Fortenova Group and the annexes thereto, including an agreement for the transfer of the applicant between, of the one part, SBC Aktiv and SBK Uranium and, of the other part, the Emirati investor, a loan agreement between the Emirati investor and the special purpose vehicle used to conclude the transaction, extracts from the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities concerning the applicant dated 31 October 2022 and 15 November 2022, a rights of claim assignment agreement dated 31 October 2022 between Sberbank and the Emirati investor, a receipt dated 31 October 2022 recording a payment made to Sberbank by the special purpose vehicle used by the Emirati investor, extracts from the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities concerning that special purpose vehicle dated 8 November 2022 and 24 November 2022, and a notice of performance of the obligation by a third party sent by the Emirati investor to Sberbank. 90 The second WK file contains only a judgment of the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, Netherlands) dated 29 December 2022. 91 The third WK file contains only a summary of classified evidence which reads as follows: ‘Evidence based on official company registers, confirming that SBK Art LLC is a controlled subsidiary of the government of the Russian Federation’. Reliability of the evidence adduced by the Council 92 The applicant questions the reliability of the evidence contained in the first WK file on which the Council relied in order to include its name on the lists at issue, arguing that that evidence comes from unreliable sources, namely low-quality press and blog articles published on the internet. In particular, the applicant submits that the media articles contained in the first WK file merely reproduce official statements made by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fortenova Croatia. The applicant also questions the evidential value of the document originating from a law firm, which it claims lacks information, in particular about its author, and was drawn up in the interests of the Fortenova Group. 93 The Council, supported by the Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission, disputes the applicant’s arguments. 94 It should be recalled that, in the absence of investigative powers in third countries, the assessment of the EU authorities must rely on publicly available sources of information, reports, articles in the press, intelligence reports or other similar sources of information. According to the case-law, press articles may be used in order to corroborate the existence of certain facts if they are sufficiently specific, precise and consistent as regards the facts there described. In that regard, it would be excessive and disproportionate to require the Council itself to investigate on the ground the accuracy of facts which are relayed by numerous media (see judgment of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v Council, T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited). 95 In the present case, it should be noted that the applicant challenges the reliability of the evidence contained solely in the first WK file. 96 First of all, the Court must reject the applicant’s assertion that, in order to maintain its name on the lists at issue, the Council relied only on low-quality press and blog articles. It should be noted that the press articles come from digital information sources of various origins, such as Reuters (exhibit No 6), Euractiv (exhibit No 7) and Bloomberg News (exhibit No 8). As regards the reliability of the evidence adduced by the Council, it should be recalled – as pointed out in paragraph 94 above – that, in the absence of investigative powers in third countries, the assessment of the EU authorities must rely on publicly available sources of information, reports, articles in the press or other similar sources of information. In addition, the applicant has not produced any other elements capable of casting doubt on the reliability of that evidence. 97 Next, the applicant claims that the press articles merely reproduce the statements of a representative of the Fortenova Group. In that connection, exhibit No 6 in the first WK file, which is an article by Reuters, and exhibit No 7, which is an article by Euractiv, do not refer to the statements of a representative of the Fortenova Group. Exhibit No 8, which is an article by Bloomberg News, does indeed quote a representative of the Fortenova Group and also relays the comments made by a representative of Sberbank. However, the mere fact that an article in the press quotes a company representative is not in itself capable of casting doubt on the probative value of that item of evidence, which also contains other information. 98 In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any evidence put forward by the applicant capable of calling into question the reliability of the sources used by the Council, those sources must be regarded as sound and reliable within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 83 above. Application to the applicant of the association criterion 99 The applicant submits, in essence, that the Council did not provide specific, precise and consistent evidence constituting a sufficient factual basis to support the maintenance of its name on the lists at issue under the association criterion. The applicant denies that Sberbank continues to control it and claims that the Council failed to adduce proof of such effective control. 100 First, the applicant states that it was actually sold by Sberbank to the Emirati investor under the applicable Russian law and that the sale was not a ‘purported’ sale. That is apparent from the various items of evidence contained in the first WK file and from the evidence adduced by the applicant showing, inter alia, that that sale was entered in the Russian Unified State Register of Legal Entities. 101 Secondly, the applicant claims that there is no evidence that Sberbank controls it and that the Emirati investor is an agent of Sberbank. On the contrary, the applicant maintains that that investor acted on his own account, as demonstrated by the terms of the sale. In that regard, the applicant disputes the analysis set out in the document of a law firm included in the first WK file, which concluded that the law firm in question did not have sufficient information to give an opinion on the compatibility with EU law of the sale of the applicant by Sberbank and on the circumstances of that sale. The applicant also adds that neither the Council nor the Republic of Croatia appears to take the view that it is controlled by Sberbank. 102 Thirdly, the applicant submits that its sale by Sberbank to the Emirati investor was not illegal and objects to a document contained in the first WK file under the heading ‘Further exhibits’ originating from the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, according to which the applicant remains under Sberbank’s control because, inter alia, no request for authorisation of its sale was made to the Croatian authorities. The applicant argues that the Croatian authorities did not have to authorise its sale by Sberbank to the Emirati investor and states that that sale, which involved a Russian seller (Sberbank), a Russian asset (the applicant itself) and an Emirati buyer, did not fall within the scope of Article 17 of Regulation No 269/2014. According to the applicant, Sberbank was free to sell it without having recourse to the derogation provided for in Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014. 103 Furthermore, the applicant disputes the Council’s argument regarding circumvention, claiming that a transaction concluded outside the European Union relating to foreign assets and involving a foreign buyer cannot constitute circumvention for the purposes of Article 9 of Regulation No 269/2014. 104 Fourthly, the applicant claims that the evidence contained in the evidence files drawn up by the Council does not serve to demonstrate that it is controlled by Sberbank. 105 The Council, supported by the Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission, disputes the applicant’s arguments. 106 It should be noted that the grounds of the contested acts are based on the association criterion laid down in Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and in Article 3(1), in fine, of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended. 107 In that regard, while the concept of ‘association’ is often used in Council acts relating to restrictive measures, it is not, as such, defined and its meaning depends on the context and circumstances at issue. That being so, such a concept may be regarded as covering natural or legal persons who are, generally speaking, linked by common interests without, however, requiring a link by means of an economic activity, but which nonetheless cannot be based exclusively on a family relationship (judgment of 25 October 2023, QF v Council, T‑386/22, not published, EU:T:2023:670, paragraph 54; see also, to that effect, judgment of 8 March 2023, Prigozhina v Council, T‑212/22, not published, EU:T:2023:104, paragraphs 93, 103 and 104 and the case-law cited). 108 The association criterion may therefore be interpreted as referring to any natural or legal person, or any entity, having a link, as defined in paragraph 107 above, with a person who is subject to restrictive measures under one of the listing criteria laid down in Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Regulation No 269/2014, as amended. 109 Furthermore, where an entity belongs to, or is controlled by, an entity subject to restrictive measures under one of the listing criteria laid down in Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, the shareholding link or relationship of control between those two entities clearly constitutes a link as referred to in paragraph 107 above, since there is a not insignificant danger of the parent entity in question exerting pressure on the entity belonging to or controlled by it in order to circumvent the effect of the measures applying to it (see, by analogy, judgment of 4 September 2015, NIOC and Others v Council, T‑577/12, not published, EU:T:2015:596, paragraph 114). 110 It should be borne in mind that the grounds on which the applicant’s name was maintained on the lists at issue have not changed since the initial inclusion of its name on those lists and are set out in paragraph 10 above. It follows, in essence, that the applicant’s name was maintained on the lists at issue as an entity associated with Sberbank on account of its status as a subsidiary of Sberbank, specifically established for the purpose of holding Sberbank’s interests in the Fortenova Group, and on account of the effective control which Sberbank retained over the applicant, notwithstanding the purported transfer of its shares to a businessman from the United Arab Emirates. 111 Against that background, it is necessary to ascertain whether the evidence submitted by the Council with a view to adopting the contested acts discharges the burden of proof borne by it and constitutes a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to substantiate the grounds for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue under the association criterion. 112 In the present case, in relation to the applicant’s status as a subsidiary of Sberbank, for the purpose of holding Sberbank’s interests in the Fortenova Group, it is common ground between the parties that Sberbank wholly owned the applicant through its subsidiaries SBK Uranium and SBC Aktiv when Sberbank’s name was added to the lists at issue by Decision 2022/1272 and Implementing Regulation 2022/1270. Furthermore, the applicant does not deny that it was established on 10 December 2021 as a special purpose vehicle in order to hold the depositary receipts and convertible bonds held by Sberbank in the Fortenova Group, namely in the Netherlands-based company Fortenova Group TopCo. Nor does the applicant dispute that, on 5 April 2022, Sberbank transferred those depositary receipts and convertible bonds to it. 113 On 21 July 2022, the Council adopted Decision 2022/1272 and Implementing Regulation 2022/1270 by which it included Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue under entry number 108. Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended by Regulation 2022/330, on the date of inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue, namely 21 July 2022, all funds and economic resources which Sberbank owned, held or controlled in the European Union were frozen and no funds or economic resources could be made available, directly or indirectly, to Sberbank, which included the depositary receipts and convertible bonds in the Netherlands-based Fortenova Group TopCo held indirectly by Sberbank through the applicant. Thus, the voting and shareholding rights associated with those depositary receipts and convertible bonds were also frozen as from that date. 114 Consequently, the applicant’s sole function was to hold – as a special purpose vehicle – Sberbank’s depositary receipts and convertible bonds in the Netherlands-based Fortenova Group TopCo which had been frozen following the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue. 115 The applicant does not deny that the depositary receipts and convertible bonds which it holds in the Netherlands-based Fortenova Group TopCo were frozen immediately upon the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue. However, the applicant claims that it ceased to be a subsidiary of Sberbank with effect from 31 October 2022, when it was sold by the subsidiaries of Sberbank which owned it, namely SBK Uranium and SBC Aktiv, to an Emirati investor, and maintains that, in consequence, on the date of adoption of the contested acts, it was no longer a subsidiary of Sberbank. 116 As regards that sale, the first WK file contains the agreement for the sale and purchase of the applicant, signed by SBK Uranium, SBC Aktiv and an Emirati investor, and the assignment agreement between Sberbank and that Emirati investor the subject matter of which were the rights of claim held by Sberbank following the transfer to the applicant, on 5 April 2022, of the depositary receipts and convertible bonds in Fortenova Group TopCo. The first WK file also contains the loan agreement concluded between the special purpose vehicle used by the Emirati investor in order to acquire the applicant and a Russian bank, as well as proof of the transfer made by that bank to that special purpose vehicle on 31 October 2022 and of the transfer made by that special purpose vehicle to Sberbank on the same date in payment of those rights of claim. 117 The Council, supported by the Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission, submits that that sale has no effect in the European Union, since it was not authorised by a competent national authority in accordance with the derogation provided for in Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014, even though that transaction fell within the territorial scope of EU law in that the material subject of the transaction and its effects are located within the European Union. 118 In that regard, it should be recalled that it is clear from paragraph 113 above that, immediately upon the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue on 21 July 2022, the depositary receipts and convertible bonds held by the applicant in the EU-based Fortenova Group TopCo were frozen pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014. 119 Article 1(f) of Regulation No 269/2014 defines ‘freezing of funds’ as ‘preventing any move, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or any other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management’. 120 Consequently, as is apparent from the application of Article 1(f) of Regulation No 269/2014 to the present case, the depositary receipts and convertible bonds held by the applicant could no longer – as from the date of inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue, namely 21 July 2022 – be moved, transferred, altered, used or accessed in any way that would have resulted, inter alia, in any change in their ownership or possession or any other change that might have enabled them to be used. 121 The only way to unfreeze those depositary receipts and convertible bonds held by the applicant with a view to transferring them was either to remove Sberbank’s name from the lists at issue or to apply one of the derogations provided for in Regulation No 269/2014. 122 In that regard, it must be stated that, at the time of the initial inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue, the Council, by Decision 2022/1272, inserted into Article 2(15) of Decision 2014/145 a specific derogation for Sberbank, listed under entry number 108, providing for the release of frozen funds or economic resources under certain conditions. Furthermore, Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014 includes the same derogation worded in terms identical to those of Article 2(15) of Decision 2014/145. 123 It should be recalled that the applicant holds depositary receipts and convertible bonds in the Netherlands-based Fortenova Group TopCo. Furthermore, it is common ground between the parties that no authorisation was sought from the competent national authority of the Netherlands, or indeed from any other national authority of a Member State, in connection with the sale of the applicant to the Emirati investor. That is confirmed by exhibits Nos 7 to 9 in the first WK file, which are articles published by Reuters, Euractiv and Bloomberg News, respectively, according to which the transfer of the applicant by Sberbank to the Emirati investor was not the subject of a request for authorisation submitted to the Netherlands or Croatian authorities. 124 According to the applicant, Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014 applies only if a transaction falls within the scope of Article 17 of Regulation No 269/2014, which is not the case here as the transaction in question concerned the transfer of ownership of a Russian entity, namely the applicant itself, in accordance with Russian law, and involved natural or legal persons who were not EU nationals and were not established in the European Union. 125 In the first place, it is necessary to determine whether Regulation No 269/2014 was applicable to the transaction by which Sberbank, through its subsidiaries SBC Aktiv and SBK Uranium, sold the applicant to the Emirati investor. 126 In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 17(a) of Regulation No 269/2014 provides that that regulation is to apply ‘within the territory of the Union, including its airspace’. 127 In the present case, the transaction in question was carried out between Sberbank, through its subsidiaries SBC Aktiv and SBK Uranium established in Russia, and an Emirati investor and concerns the sale of a company established in Russia, namely the applicant. However, as is apparent from exhibit No 1 in the first WK file, the applicant was constituted as a special purpose vehicle with the sole function of holding Sberbank’s interests in the Fortenova Group, namely the depositary receipts and convertible bonds in the Netherlands-based Fortenova Group TopCo, which were transferred to the applicant on 5 April 2022. Consequently, although the applicant is a company established in Russia, it holds funds located in the European Union in the form of depositary receipts and convertible bonds in a company established in the European Union. 128 Given that the sale of the applicant by Sberbank to the Emirati investor would result in the transfer of those funds located within the territory of the European Union, in accordance with Article 17(a) of Regulation No 269/2014, that regulation was applicable to the sale of the applicant by Sberbank to the Emirati investor. 129 In the second place, it is necessary to determine whether the derogation provided for in Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014 was applicable to the transaction in question by which the applicant was sold to the Emirati investor. 130 According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, in interpreting a provision of EU law, regard should be had not only to its wording but also to the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it forms part (see judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited). 131 It should be borne in mind that Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014 provides that ‘by way of derogation from Article 2, the competent authorities of a Member State may, under such conditions as they deem appropriate, authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources to the entity listed under entry number 108 in Annex I, after having determined that the funds or economic resources are necessary for the completion, by 31 October 2022, of an ongoing sale and transfer of proprietary rights directly or indirectly owned by that entity in a legal person, entity or body established in the Union’. 132 First, it is apparent from the wording of Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014 that that derogation applies to the sale of proprietary rights directly or indirectly owned by Sberbank, listed under entry number 108, in a legal person, entity or body established in the European Union. 133 The Court must reject the applicant’s argument that that derogation is not applicable to the transaction in question because the object of that transaction was a company established in Russia, namely the applicant itself, and did not concern assets located in the European Union. As is clear from paragraph 112 above, on the date of the initial inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue, Sberbank wholly owned the applicant through its subsidiaries SBK Uranium and SBC Aktiv and the applicant held depositary receipts and convertible bonds in the capital of the Netherlands-based Fortenova Group TopCo. Consequently, those depositary receipts and convertible bonds were proprietary rights held indirectly by Sberbank in a legal person established in the European Union, namely Fortenova Group TopCo, a company established in the Netherlands. 134 Secondly, as regards the systematic interpretation of Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014, the derogation laid down in that provision is a derogation from Article 2 of Regulation No 269/2014, which provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, or natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them. In the absence of authorisation for release such as that provided for in Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014, the funds and economic resources frozen pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation No 269/2014 may not be unfrozen and the ownership thereof may not be transferred. 135 Thirdly, that finding is borne out by the objective pursued by Regulation No 269/2014. The objective of the derogations laid down in that regulation, such as the derogation set out in Article 6b(2b), is to define clearly the situations in which the entities included on the lists at issue may apply to the competent national authorities for authorisation to sell frozen assets and is thus to ensure the effectiveness of the restrictive measures. Consequently, that derogation falls within the objectives of the legislation governing the restrictive measures at issue, which pursues objectives linked to the need, in view of the gravity of the situation, to exert maximum pressure on the Russian authorities so that they bring an end to their actions and policies destabilising Ukraine and to the military aggression against Ukraine. 136 Accordingly, the ownership of frozen funds – such as the assets located within the European Union held by the applicant in the Fortenova Group – cannot be transferred by natural or legal persons whose name is included on the lists at issue to other persons outside the European Union, without recourse to a derogation such as that provided for in Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014. 137 The sale by Sberbank of the applicant, the sole function of which is to hold the depositary receipts and convertible bonds in the EU-based Fortenova Group TopCo, would result in the unfreezing and the transfer of those assets which had been frozen following the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue. 138 Consequently, contrary to what the applicant claims, Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014 was applicable to the sale of the applicant to the Emirati investor, with the result that it was necessary to seek and secure authorisation from the competent Netherlands authority in order to proceed with the transaction in question. 139 If such a transaction were recognised in the European Union, in the absence of authorisation from a competent national authority under a derogation provided for by Regulation No 269/2014, the effects of the restrictive measures to which Sberbank is subject would be rendered nugatory. 140 In that regard, it should be noted that prior authorisation for that sale was not obtained from a competent national authority in accordance with Article 6b(2b) of Regulation No 269/2014. In the absence of such authorisation, that sale cannot produce any effects under EU law on restrictive measures. The Council was therefore right to describe that sale as a ‘purported transfer’ in the grounds for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. 141 It follows that the transfer by Sberbank to an Emirati investor of the depositary receipts and convertible bonds, held by the applicant in Fortenova Group TopCo within the European Union and frozen since the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue, without authorisation from a competent national authority, is contrary to the provisions of Regulation No 269/2014 and, therefore, must be regarded as having no effect under EU law. 142 Consequently, from the point of view of EU law, the purported sale of the applicant to an Emirati investor did not alter its situation on the date of adoption of the contested acts as compared with its situation on the date of the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue. The applicant continued to hold the depositary receipts and convertible bonds in Fortenova Group TopCo which had been frozen following the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue and which, as from that date, could no longer be altered or subject to any transfer of ownership without authorisation for their release being granted by a competent national authority. 143 It follows that the fact that the applicant continued to hold the depositary receipts and convertible bonds in the Netherlands-based Fortenova Group TopCo – receipts and bonds that had been frozen following the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on the lists at issue – demonstrates the existence of common interests between the applicant and Sberbank. 144 In the light of all of those considerations, the Court finds that the Council adduced a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence capable of demonstrating that the applicant was, on the date of the contested acts, a legal person associated with Sberbank, within the meaning of the association criterion, on account of the fact that it continued to hold Sberbank’s interests in the Fortenova Group. 145 According to the case-law, with regard to the review of the lawfulness of a decision adopting restrictive measures, and having regard to their preventive nature, if the Courts of the European Union consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned is sufficiently detailed and specific, that it is substantiated and that it constitutes in itself sufficient basis to support that decision, the fact that the same cannot be said of other such reasons cannot justify the annulment of that decision (see judgment of 28 November 2013, Council v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited). 146 Therefore, the fact that the ground relating to the applicant’s status as a subsidiary of Sberbank which holds depositary receipts and convertible bonds in Fortenova Group TopCo is well founded is sufficient, in itself, to justify the dismissal of the plea alleging error of assessment, without there being any need either to examine whether the other grounds relating to the effective control which, it is claimed, Sberbank continues to exercise over the applicant are well founded or to examine the arguments advanced by the applicant concerning such control. 147 The plea in law alleging error of assessment must therefore be dismissed. Plea in law alleging breach of the principle of proportionality 148 The applicant submits that the contested acts do not help attain the European Union’s objectives. According to the applicant, the maintenance of its name on the lists at issue does not seek to increase the cost of the war for the Russian Federation, but in fact serves other objectives linked to the economic interests of the Republic of Croatia in the Fortenova Group, a company which that Member State considers to be strategically important. 149 The applicant argues that the maintenance of its name on the lists at issue is disproportionate. According to the applicant, if Sberbank continues to control it, as the Council maintains, despite the sale to the Emirati investor, then its funds would have been frozen as an entity controlled by Sberbank without it being necessary to include and maintain its name on the lists at issue. 150 The Council, supported by the Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission, disputes the applicant’s arguments. 151 The principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law and is referred to in Article 5(4) TEU, requires that measures implemented through provisions of EU law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them (judgment of 15 November 2012, Al-Aqsa v Council and Netherlands v Al-Aqsa, C‑539/10 P and C‑550/10 P, EU:C:2012:711, paragraph 122). 152 In the present case, it should be observed that the designation of the applicant as a legal person associated with Sberbank pursues one of the objectives of the CFSP. The adoption of restrictive measures against entities associated with natural or legal persons, entities or bodies included on the lists at issue under one of the criteria laid down in Decision 2014/145, as amended, meets the objective set out in Article 21(2)(c) TEU of preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. As to the appropriateness of the restrictive measures taken against the applicant, it follows that, in the light of the objectives pursued by those measures, they cannot, in themselves, be regarded as inappropriate (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 2 December 2020, Kalai v Council, T‑178/19, not published, EU:T:2020:580, paragraph 171 and the case-law cited). 153 In the circumstances of the present case, it should also be noted that, in recitals 2 to 10 of Decision 2022/329, the Council referred to the continuing deterioration of the situation in Ukraine which culminated, on 24 February 2022, in the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine in blatant violation of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of the latter State. Thus, it is on account of the worsening of the situation in Ukraine, characterised by the outbreak of the war of aggression waged by the Russian Federation, that the Council deemed it necessary to widen the circle of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, in order to achieve the objectives pursued. It follows from that approach, which is based on the progressive impairment of rights according to the effectiveness of the measures, that the proportionality of those measures is established (see, by analogy, judgments of 28 November 2013, Council v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 126, and of 25 January 2017, Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence v Council, T‑255/15, not published, EU:T:2017:25, paragraph 104). 154 In addition, by applying also to natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with persons included on the lists at issue under one of the criteria laid down in Article 2(1) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, the Council could legitimately expect that the actions of the Russian Federation would cease or become more costly for those engaging in them, in order to promote an end to the blatant violation of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 September 2018, Rosneft and Others v Council, T‑715/14, not published, EU:T:2018:544, paragraph 157). Therefore, contrary to what the applicant claims, there is a connection between the inclusion and maintenance of its name on the lists at issue and the objective pursued by the restrictive measures. 155 In that regard, it should be recalled that the importance of the objectives pursued by an EU act establishing a system of restrictive measures is such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for some operators, including those who are in no way responsible for the situation which led to the adoption of the measures in question (see, by analogy, judgments of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraph 361, and of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 150). 156 The inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue as a legal person associated with Sberbank and the resulting restrictive measures are also necessary in order to achieve and implement the objectives referred to in Article 21 TEU, since alternative and less onerous measures, such as a system of prior authorisation or an obligation to justify, a posteriori, how the funds transferred were used, are not as effective in achieving the goal pursued, particularly given the possibility of circumventing the restrictions imposed (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 January 2016, Makhlouf v Council, T‑443/13, not published, EU:T:2016:27, paragraph 112, and of 25 January 2017, Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence v Council, T‑255/15, not published, EU:T:2017:25, paragraph 106). Besides, the applicant has not demonstrated that less onerous alternative measures would have been as effective in attaining those objectives. 157 In addition, it must be noted that Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, provide for the possibility of granting specific authorisation to unfreeze funds, other financial assets or other economic resources and of periodically reviewing the inclusion of the names of the persons or entities concerned on the lists at issue, so that persons and entities no longer meeting the criteria for inclusion on those lists can be removed from them. 158 As regards the applicant’s argument that the inclusion and maintenance of its name on the lists at issue is unnecessary because the assets it holds had already been frozen following the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on those lists, first, it should be noted that the possibility of also including and maintaining on the lists at issue natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with sanctioned persons derives from Article 2(1) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and from Article 3(1) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended. 159 Secondly, such inclusion and maintenance may also be aimed at avoiding a risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures. As is apparent from the case-law, where the funds of an entity are frozen, there is a not insignificant danger that that entity may exert pressure on the entities it owns or controls in order to circumvent the effect of the measures applying to it, with the result that the freezing of the funds of those entities is necessary and appropriate in order to ensure the effectiveness of the measures adopted and to ensure that those measures are not circumvented (see, to that effect, judgments of 13 March 2012, Melli Bank v Council, C‑380/09 P, EU:C:2012:137, paragraph 58, and of 22 September 2016, NIOC and Others v Council, C‑595/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:721, paragraph 89). 160 The purpose of maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue by way of the contested acts was to avoid such a risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures. In that regard, it is apparent, in particular, from an email dated 20 November 2022 sent by the Emirati investor to the Fortenova Group, included in the first WK file in the ‘Further exhibits’ section, that that investor was of the view that, on that date, the applicant was no longer controlled by an entity subject to restrictive measures and asked to be able to participate in and exercise voting rights at future meetings of the Fortenova Group. Thus, contrary to what the applicant states, the adoption of the contested acts maintaining its name on the lists at issue was not disproportionate and unnecessary even though the assets it held in the European Union had been frozen following the inclusion of Sberbank’s name on those lists. 161 It follows that the plea in law alleging breach of the principle of proportionality must be dismissed, as must, therefore, the action in its entirety. Costs 162 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 163 In addition, under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. 164 In the present case, as the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council, in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter. The Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission must bear their own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders SBK Art OOO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; 3. Orders the Republic of Croatia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs. Brkan Gâlea Tóth Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 November 2025. V. Di Bucci S. Papasavvas Registrar President * Language of the case: English.