Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2025:327
Date: 2025-05-08
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible

Appeal brought on 15 November 2023 by Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-526/21, Gutseriev v Council (Case C-681/23 P) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (represented by: B. Kennelly, Senior Counsel, J. Pobjoy, Barrister-at-Law, and D. Anderson, avocat) Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside the judgment under appeal; itself give final judgment in this case, (i) annulling the contested acts 1 in so far as they concern the appellant; and/or (ii) declaring that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus 2 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus 3 (as amended) are inapplicable in so far as they concern the appellant; in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, in line with the legal assessment of the Court of Justice; and order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court. Pleas in law and main arguments The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal. First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the appellant was benefiting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko in a financial or material way. Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the appellant continued to benefit from or support the regime of President Lukashenko at the time of his designation. Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the appellant was benefiting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko. ____________ 1 Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3). Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3). 1 OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1. 1 OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1.