Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:455
Date: 2024-07-10
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Action for annulment - inadmissible

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 the question whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (judgment 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). 91 It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person or entity to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (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 121, and of 3 July 2014, National Iranian Tanker Company v Council, T‑565/12, EU:T:2014:608, paragraph 57). 92 The assessment as to whether those reasons are well founded 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 set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that there is a sufficient link between the person subject to a measure freezing his or her funds and the regime being combated (judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v Council, C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraph 53). 93 It is in the light of those principles of case-law that the Court must determine whether the Council made an error of assessment in considering that, in the present case, there was a sufficiently solid factual basis capable of justifying (i) the initial listing, and (ii) the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. (a) The initial acts (1) The evidence 94 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, in order to justify the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, the first WK file and the addendum thereto provided by the Council contain 10 items of evidence, namely: – an extract from the Twitter account of a journalist dated February 2022 (Exhibit 1); – an article announcing the applicant’s appointment as CEO of EuroChem published on the company’s website on 7 September 2020 (Exhibit 2); – a page from EuroChem’s website accessed by the Council on 28 February 2022 presenting the EuroChem Group’s management committee and containing a short biography of the applicant (Exhibit 3); – a biography of the applicant published on the website ‘tadviser.com’ (Exhibit 4); – an article in Russian from the news agency ‘tass.ru’ published on 27 April 2021 (Exhibit 5); – an article published on SUEK’s website in February 2020 (Exhibit 5a); – a photo published on the Sputnik website on 7 February 2018 (Exhibit 6); – an article published on the website ‘cbonds.com’ on 11 October 2021 (Exhibit 7); – an article published on the website ‘open4business.com’ on 3 February 2018 (Exhibit 8); – an article published by the Centre for Eastern Studies on 7 February 2022 describing EuroChem as one of the largest producers of fertilisers (Exhibit 10). 95 The applicant argues that the first WK file and the addendum thereto contain inaccuracies and are vague. In terms of content, they are nothing more than an insubstantial compilation of materials from social media which have very little to do with the applicant. The applicant questions the relevance of all the exhibits produced to justify the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue in the light of the grounds for listing, since no link has been established between the content of those exhibits and criteria (a), (f) and (g) on which that listing was based. 96 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. 97 It should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, 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 that regard, in order to assess the probative value of a document, regard must be had to the credibility of the information it contains, taking account in particular of 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 judgments of 31 May 2018, Kaddour v Council, T‑461/16, EU:T:2018:316, paragraph 107 and the case-law cited, and of 12 February 2020, Amisi Kumba v Council, T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraph 95 (not published) and the case-law cited). 98 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 (judgments of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission, T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 107, and of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v Council, T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 59). 99 Furthermore, it must be noted that the situation of conflict in which the Russian Federation and Ukraine are involved makes it extremely difficult in practice to access certain sources, to expressly state the primary source of certain information and to potentially gather evidence from persons who are prepared to be identified. The ensuing investigative difficulties may therefore constitute a barrier to the production of precise evidence and objective information (see judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v Council, T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 116 and the case-law cited). 100 In the present case, contrary to what the applicant claims, the Council did not rely on an insubstantial compilation of materials from social media, since it produced, among other things, screenshots from the websites of EuroChem and SUEK (Exhibits 2, 3 and 5a) and from Russian news agencies (Exhibits 5 and 6). 101 The arguments by which the applicant calls into question the reliability or relevance of certain specific exhibits, in particular Exhibits 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, will be addressed, where appropriate, in the context of the examination of whether the grounds for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue are well founded. (2) Criterion (g) 102 The applicant maintains that he cannot be regarded as a ‘leading’ businessperson as it has not been shown that he was closely associated with the Russian regime. Furthermore, he disputes the Council’s assertion that the word ‘leading’ should be understood as meaning ‘important’ rather than ‘capable of influencing’. According to the applicant, the Council merely stated that he was the CEO and director of EuroChem and, between 2004 and 2020, the CEO of SUEK. Moreover, the Council has not substantiated its claim that EuroChem and SUEK were major Russian undertakings providing substantial revenue to the Russian Government. In that connection, first, the applicant submits that EuroChem is a company which has its registered office in Switzerland, operates in many countries and makes most of its sales outside Russia. Its net revenue in respect of the Russian Federation is negative. Secondly, the applicant states that he stood down from all executive positions at SUEK in May 2020 and that his role within the company between 18 May 2020 and 15 March 2022 was limited to a non-executive position on the board of directors. 103 The applicant also submits that the Council was required to demonstrate that the person in question or the sector in which that person operates provides a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government. The Council has not proved that EuroChem and SUEK provided a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government. The applicant adds that restrictive measures cannot be based solely on the fact that an entity is a prominent taxpayer and that it cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the applicant was a senior manager at major companies that he provided substantial revenue to the Russian Government. Lastly, the contribution made by EuroChem and SUEK was minimal. 104 In his reply, the applicant argues that the Council has not adduced any evidence of the substantial revenue generated by the fertiliser or coal sectors for the benefit of the Government of the Russian Federation. 105 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. 106 It should be recalled that the applicant’s name was included on the lists at issue on the basis of criterion (g), on the grounds that he was ‘the CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG, one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers’ and that ‘previously (between 2004 and 2020) he was the CEO of a coal company JSC SUEK’, EuroChem and SUEK being, according to those grounds, ‘major Russian companies … which generate and provide substantial revenue to the Russian Government’. 107 In the first place, as regards the classification of the applicant as a ‘leading businessperson’, it should be noted that criterion (g) encompasses the concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ in connection with the exercise of an activity ‘in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [Russian] Government’, with no other condition regarding ties, be they direct or indirect, with that government. The purpose of that criterion is in fact to exert maximum pressure on the Russian authorities so that they bring an end to their actions and policies destabilising Ukraine and the military aggression against that country (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 July 2022, RT France v Council, T‑125/22, EU:T:2022:483, paragraph 163 and the case-law cited). 108 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] As recalled in paragraph 58 above, there is a rational connection between the targeting of leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian Government and the objective of the restrictive measures in the present case, which is to increase the pressure on the Russian Federation and to increase the costs of the latter’s actions to undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. 109 However, there is nothing in the recitals or the provisions of Decision 2014/145 or of Regulation No 269/2014, as worded when the initial acts were adopted, to support the conclusion that it is for the Council to demonstrate the existence of close ties or interdependence between, on the one hand, the person included on the lists at issue and, on the other, the Russian Government or its actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v Council, T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 140). 110 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Furthermore, as stated in paragraph 55 above, in the light of the wording of criterion (g), the persons concerned must be regarded as leading persons on account of their importance in the sector in which they operate and the importance of that sector for the economy. 111 In the present case, the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson is apparent from Exhibits 2 and 3, taken from EuroChem’s website. Those exhibits show that, on the date of adoption of the initial acts, the applicant was the CEO and director of the EuroChem Group. In addition, EuroChem is described as a leading producer of fertilisers, with more than 27 000 employees worldwide. It is also apparent from those items of evidence that the group is vertically integrated with activities ranging from mining to the production of fertilisers, logistics and distribution. Moreover, it is stated in the exhibits that the applicant became CEO of EuroChem following his resignation, in May 2020, as CEO of SUEK, a leading coal and energy company on whose board of directors he still sits as a member. 112 Accordingly, the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson when the initial acts included his name on the lists at issue is sufficiently clear from the position he held at EuroChem and from the importance of that company within the Russian economy, and is confirmed by his previous position as CEO of SUEK, even though he no longer held that position when the initial acts were adopted. 113 Furthermore, the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson is also borne out by Exhibits 1 and 6, the content of which he does not dispute, according to which he attended meetings in the presence of President Putin, on 7 February 2018, as CEO of SUEK, and on 24 February 2022, the day after the invasion of Ukraine, as CEO of EuroChem. 114 Consequently, in the light of all of those considerations, the Court finds that the Council did not make an error of assessment in considering that, on the date of adoption of the initial acts, the applicant was a leading businessperson within the meaning of criterion (g). 115 That finding cannot be called into question by the applicant’s argument that his membership of SUEK’s board of directors is a non-executive position. First, the applicant was undeniably a leading businessperson on the date of adoption of the initial acts, having regard solely to his position as CEO of EuroChem. Secondly, the honorary nature of that position is not substantiated. 116 In the second place, as regards the economic sector at issue, it is clear from criterion (g) that it is the sector, and not the natural or legal person whose name is included on the lists at issue, which must provide a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation. 117 In the present case, by making clear, in the statement of reasons, that EuroChem is one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers, the Council identified the relevant economic sector, namely the fertiliser sector. 118 As regards whether that sector provides a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Federation, it should be noted, first of all, that Exhibit 10 attests to Russian expansion on the market for nitrogen-based fertilisers, the production of which is particularly profitable in Russia due to regulated gas prices, the importance of natural gas in the production of that type of fertiliser and the fact that EuroChem benefits from such low Russian gas prices. It is apparent from that exhibit that EuroChem is one of the world’s largest fertiliser producers and that, despite being based in Switzerland, most of its production is concentrated in Russia. Contrary to what is suggested by the applicant, who in no way disputes the information contained in Exhibit 10, there is nothing to cast doubt on the credibility of that exhibit or of the Centre for Eastern Studies, an independent research institute established in a Member State, in Warsaw (Poland), which published that article. 119 Next, Exhibit 2 confirms that EuroChem is a world leader in the production of nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilisers. Similarly, Exhibit 7 refers to EuroChem’s particularly high revenue, since it is apparent from that exhibit that its Russian subsidiary alone reported profits of 51.15 billion Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately EUR 600 million) for the first nine months of 2021 and a total increase in revenue of 39.46%. 120 Finally, it transpires from the international nature of the commercial trade mentioned in Exhibits 2, 8 and 10 that the fertiliser sector generates substantial exports and, consequently, an inflow of liquidity. 121 It follows from the foregoing that, on the date of adoption of the initial acts, the applicant was a leading businessperson involved in a sector, the fertiliser sector, which provided a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation. 122 Having regard to the preventive nature of decisions adopting restrictive measures, 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, to that effect, 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). 123 Accordingly, without there being any need to examine the merits of the other complaints raised by the applicant seeking to call into question the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue under criteria (a) and (f), the Court must reject the plea in law alleging an error of assessment in so far as it is directed, in Case T‑309/22, at the initial acts and, therefore, it must dismiss the action in its entirety in that case. (b) The September 2022 acts 124 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] As a preliminary point, it is clear that the reasons for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue are the same as the reasons given in the initial acts. It should be added that, in order to justify maintaining the applicant’s name on those lists in the September 2022 acts, the Council relied on the same evidence as that contained in the first WK file and the addendum thereto (see paragraph 18 above). 125 It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether all the evidence adduced by the Council discharges the burden of proof borne by it and constitutes a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the grounds for listing in the September 2022 acts. (1) Criterion (g) 126 The applicant states that, on the day on which the initial acts were adopted, he resigned from all of the positions he held at EuroChem and from the position he still held on SUEK’s board of directors. Therefore, the ground relating to his status as a leading businessperson is in no way adapted to the new facts. The Council thus maintained the restrictive measures at issue against the applicant, measures which were supposed to be provisional, without carrying out an updated assessment of the situation or adducing evidence establishing a sufficient link between the applicant and the situation giving rise to the restrictive measures. 127 The applicant adds that the Council’s argument that he maintained his positions at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (‘the RSPP’) was not mentioned in the statement of reasons for the September 2022 acts, with the result that that argument is not relevant in the context of reviewing the legality of the restrictive measures. 128 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. 129 In the first place, the Council submits that, despite standing down, the applicant continues to be a leading businessperson. Furthermore, he chose to resign rather than to change the behaviour or status which justified the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue, which suggests that he tried to avoid the restrictive measures against him. In addition, he maintained his positions as a member of the board of the RSPP, as chair of the RSPP’s Mining Commission, as deputy chair of the Committee on Climate Policy and Carbon Regulation, and as head of the Coordination Council for the Siberian District. According to the Council, it follows that the applicant has not ceased to be a Russian businessperson operating in the energy sector, irrespective of the fact that he is no longer CEO of EuroChem or a member of SUEK’s board of directors. Consequently, the Council carried out an updated assessment before adopting the September 2022 acts and considered that the same conclusion could be drawn as in March 2022. The objectives of the restrictive measures, namely to put an end to the unlawful military aggression against Ukraine, has not yet been achieved and the reference to past conduct or previous positions cannot be irrelevant solely because that conduct and those positions date from the more or less remote past. 130 In the second place, the Council contends that the applicant was active in the mining and energy sectors, which provides a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government. 131 It should be borne in mind that restrictive measures are 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 aims. Thus, when periodically reviewing those restrictive measures, it is for the Council to carry out an updated assessment of the situation and to take stock of the effects of those measures, with a view to determining whether they have made it possible to achieve the objectives pursued by the initial inclusion of the names of the persons and entities concerned on the list at issue or whether it is still possible to reach the same conclusion in relation to those persons and entities (see judgment of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited). 132 Furthermore, in order to justify maintaining a person’s name on the list, the Council is not prohibited from basing its decision on the same evidence justifying the initial inclusion, re-inclusion or previous retention of the name of the person concerned on the list, provided that (i) the grounds for inclusion remain unchanged and (ii) the context has not changed in such a way that that evidence is now out of date. That context includes not only the situation of the country in respect of which the system of restrictive measures has been established, but also the particular situation of the person concerned (see judgment of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited). 133 It should be noted at the outset that, while it is true that the general context of the situation of Ukraine as regards the threats to its territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence did not change between the adoption of the initial acts and the September 2022 acts, the same cannot be said as regards the applicant’s situation, owing to his resignation from the positions he held at EuroChem. 134 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] It is therefore necessary to determine whether, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 131 and 132 above, the Council took proper account of the changes in the applicant’s situation when deciding to maintain his name on the lists at issue, whether his particular situation did not change in such a way that the evidence is now out of date, and whether it is apparent from the first WK file and the addendum thereto that the applicant could still be classified, on the date of adoption of the September 2022 acts, as a leading businessperson within the meaning of criterion (g) or, at the very least, whether the evidence in that file could constitute a body of evidence for that purpose, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 92 above. 135 In the first place, it is clear that the factual basis underpinning the ground relied on in the September 2022 acts in respect of the applicant, which relates to criterion (g), refers exclusively to his former position as CEO of SUEK and to his positions as CEO and director of EuroChem. 136 The applicant denies that, when the September 2022 acts were adopted, he was still the CEO and director of EuroChem, because he resigned from those positions on 15 March 2022, which the Council acknowledges in the present proceedings. In addition, it appears that the Council had been aware, at least since 31 May 2022, that the applicant had stood down. It follows that the applicant’s argument alleging an error of fact must be upheld as regards the assertion in the grounds relied on against him in the September 2022 acts that he ‘is the CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG’. 137 In the second place, it should be observed that the Council did not take into account the changes in the applicant’s individual situation. The specific grounds which justified the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue were essentially linked to his positions as CEO and director of EuroChem and as former CEO of SUEK. 138 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Although the applicant’s position as CEO of EuroChem served to justify his initial listing (see paragraphs 106 to 121 above), the same cannot be said for the maintenance of his name on the lists at issue, which are based on a periodic review of the restrictive measures in order to enable the Council to take account of any changes in circumstances concerning, in particular, the individual situation of the persons subject to them. The September 2022 acts represent the outcome of that periodic review exercise. 139 First, the Council cannot assume from the mere fact that the applicant was CEO of EuroChem when his name was initially included on the lists at issue and, until 2020, CEO of SUEK, that he could be classified as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, even several months after leaving his positions in those groups. That would lead to the applicant’s situation being frozen and to the periodic review provided for, inter alia, in the third paragraph of Article 6 of Decision 2014/145 and Article 14(4) of Regulation No 269/2014, as worded when the September 2022 acts were adopted, being deprived of any practical effect. 140 Secondly, it is also not possible to take the view that the mere fact that the applicant was CEO of EuroChem and of SUEK in the past may constitute sufficient evidence that his status as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government continued. 141 It is true that it cannot automatically be ruled out that the former CEO of a major group such as EuroChem or SUEK may still be classified as a leading businessperson, even after that person’s resignation, all the more so where that resignation coincides with his or her initial inclusion on the lists at issue. However, where that status is disputed, it is for the Council to put forward sufficiently probative evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that the person concerned is still involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, justifying the inclusion of that person’s name on the list, even after his or her resignation (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 July 2014, Alchaar v Council, T‑203/12, not published, EU:T:2014:602, paragraph 150 and the case-law cited). 142 In the present case, however, the Council has failed to adduce any evidence relating to the applicant in the context of the action against the September 2022 acts explaining why he was still to be regarded as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government within the meaning of criterion (g). On the contrary, it relied on the same evidence as the evidence relating to the applicant’s links with EuroChem and SUEK which had justified the initial inclusion of his name on the lists at issue, despite the changes in his individual situation. 143 In the defence, the Council simply contends that the applicant maintained his positions as a member of the board of the RSPP, as chair of the RSPP’s Mining Commission, as deputy chair of the Committee on Climate Policy and Carbon Regulation, and as head of the Coordination Council for the Siberian District. Such information does not relate to the grounds relied on against the applicant in the September 2022 acts, with the result that the Court cannot take it into account when assessing whether the September 2022 acts were well founded without effecting a substitution of grounds. 144 In any event, that information is not sufficiently substantiated to demonstrate that, when the September 2022 acts were adopted, the applicant could still be classified as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, within the meaning of criterion (g). 145 Furthermore, as regards the September 2022 acts, the mere fact that the applicant participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 is not sufficient to establish that his listing under criterion (g) was well founded (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 September 2023, Shulgin v Council, T‑364/22, not published, EU:T:2023:503, paragraph 63). 146 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the first ground for listing relating to criterion (g) is not sufficiently substantiated as regards the September 2022 acts. It is therefore necessary to examine the second ground for listing, relating to criterion (a). (2) Criterion (a) 147 First of all, the applicant states that EuroChem and SUEK do not cooperate with the Russian authorities. That assertion is not relevant in the context of the listing criteria and no evidence was adduced to support it. He submits that the Council has not demonstrated that EuroChem supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbass. Furthermore, the argument that SUEK signed contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea for its employees is materially flawed. Indeed, it was the employees themselves who decided to holiday in Crimea and the Council has not adduced evidence that the applicant directly participated in the decision to cover the costs of those trips. The applicant further states that, since he did not occupy any position in those companies when the September 2022 acts were adopted, he cannot be held responsible for their past activities. 148 Next, the applicant reiterates that he was invited to the meeting of 24 February 2022 by the RSPP, which has criticised the Russian Government on several occasions, and not by the Office of the President. He states that that meeting was scheduled as an annual meeting. The applicant submits that describing his relationship with President Putin as a professional one is insufficient justification for his listing. 149 Lastly, the applicant argues that the actions relied on by the Council are, in any event, not capable of undermining or threatening the territorial integrity of Ukraine within the meaning of criterion (a). 150 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments and contends that the applicant supported actions and policies undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine through the activities of the companies he managed. In that regard, it refers to the supply of fertilisers by EuroChem to the occupied areas of Donbas and the financing by SUEK of holidays for its employees in Crimea. The provision of that support is confirmed by the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022. 151 The Council also states that reliance on actions and policies undermining and threatening the territorial integrity of Ukraine is necessarily based on actions and policies implemented in the past. 152 It should be observed that the reasons given in the September 2022 acts relating to criterion (a) stem from the fact that, in his capacity as CEO of EuroChem and former CEO of SUEK, the applicant participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 with President Putin, which shows that he is part of the inner circle of oligarchs close to the president. In addition, those undertakings cooperate with the Russian authorities, including President Putin. The undertakings in the EuroChem Group supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas and SUEK signed contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea for employee health programmes (see paragraph 10 above). 153 In that regard, it should be borne in mind at the outset that criterion (a), concerning the provision of support for actions or policies which undermine the territorial integrity of Ukraine, implies that a direct or indirect link is established between the activities or actions of the person or entity targeted and the situation in Ukraine underpinning the adoption of the restrictive measures at issue. In other words, those persons or entities must, by their conduct, have been responsible for supporting actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 November 2016, Rotenberg v Council, T‑720/14, EU:T:2016:689, paragraph 74). 154 In the present case, first, it is not disputed that the applicant no longer held the position of CEO of EuroChem when the September 2022 acts were adopted. 155 Secondly, although the Council points to Exhibit 8 in the first WK file, that exhibit dates from 3 February 2018 and refers to the imposition of sanctions by Ukraine, in 2017, on certain undertakings in the EuroChem Group for having supplied fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas. In that regard, it is not disputed that the applicant’s appointment as CEO of EuroChem dates from September 2020. Consequently, no link can be established between the applicant and the supply of fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas. That exhibit is therefore not relevant for the purposes of justifying the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, under criterion (a), by means of the September 2022 acts. 156 Thirdly, the Council relies on the payment by SUEK of holidays in Crimea for its employees. In that regard, the Council merely produces a summary in English of an article in Russian (Exhibit 5a in the first WK file). According to the summary, that article states that, ‘in 2020 (and in previous years) SUEK financed the health and social programs for company’s employees by signing contracts with different sanatoriums and SPAs, including in Crimea’ and that ‘as this was done under the leadership of CEO Vladimir Rashnevsky [sic], it proves that Rashnevsky supported and implemented actions or policies, which undermine[d] or threaten[ed] the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine’. 157 The applicant disputes the translation of the article in question and claims that the original wording in Russian does not state that SUEK signed contracts with sanatoriums and spas in Crimea. He maintains that the sentence to which the Council draws attention simply states that ‘in recent years employees of SUEK’s Krasnoyarsk enterprises have been actively exploring Crimea, choosing health resorts in Yalta and Alushta’. 158 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] When questioned at the hearing, the Council stated that it did not cast doubt on the translation provided by the applicant and conceded that the wording of the article published on SUEK’s website did not appear to mention a contract concluded, at least directly, by SUEK with sanatoriums in Crimea. Accordingly, the assertion in the statement of reasons that SUEK signed contracts with such sanatoriums for employee health programmes is not supported by Exhibit 5a in the first WK file provided by the Council and does not have a sufficiently solid factual basis in accordance with paragraph 90 above. 159 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] In that regard, pursuant to the case-law cited in paragraph 91 above, in order to address the applicant’s argument that the original wording of the article does not refer to a contract, it is for the Council to establish that the reasons relied on against the applicant, based on links between SUEK and sanatoriums and spas in Crimea, are well founded, and not for the applicant to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded. 160 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] For the sake of completeness, if it were considered that the payment by SUEK of the travel expenses of its employees, some of whom had chosen to visit Crimea, as the applicant acknowledges, was linked to the statement of reasons, that fact alone would not be sufficient to support the applicant’s listing under criterion (a), since it is apparent from Exhibit 5a in the first WK file that the employees picked their holiday destination. Thus, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 153 above, that fact is insufficient to establish the existence of a link, even an indirect link, between the applicant’s activities or actions and the situation in Ukraine underpinning the adoption of the restrictive measures. 161 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Fourthly, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 145 above, which must be applied by analogy in the context of criterion (a), the Council cannot infer from the mere fact that the applicant participated in a meeting organised by President Putin attended by representatives of large undertakings that he may be held responsible for actions or policies undermining or threatening stability in Ukraine, or may be considered to support such actions or policies. 162 Furthermore, the assertion that the applicant’s presence at the meeting of 24 February 2022 is evidence of a professional relationship and of the fact that it is impossible to run a large undertaking in Russia without the government’s approval in exchange for loyalty and support cannot be relied on in support of criterion (a). Such a general assertion is not capable of establishing a direct or indirect link with the situation in Ukraine underpinning the adoption of the restrictive measures. 163 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Furthermore, the claim that the applicant is part of the inner circle of oligarchs close to President Putin is not, in itself, capable of establishing a link within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 153 above. In that regard, it should also be pointed out that the Council itself submitted, in the defence, that the applicant had been listed not because of a personal relationship with the president but because of a professional one. Therefore, the fact that the applicant participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 is not in itself sufficient to establish that his listing under criterion (a) is well founded. 164 Fifthly, the meeting referred to in Exhibit 6 in the first WK file was concerned with the environmental situation in the territory of Krasnoyarsk, so that not only is it not related to the grounds relied on against the applicant in the September 2022 acts, but it does not demonstrate any link between the applicant and the actions and policies referred to in criterion (a). 165 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the ground for listing relating to criterion (a) is not sufficiently substantiated as regards the September 2022 acts. It is therefore necessary to examine the third ground for listing relating to criterion (f). (3) Criterion (f) 166 The applicant argues that the statement that he cooperates with the Russian authorities is imprecise and erroneous, as well as irrelevant. Moreover, the Council did not adduce any evidence in support of its claims that the applicant supported the Russian Government. Thus, the Council did not prove either that EuroChem or SUEK generated and provided substantial revenue to the Russian Government or that undertakings in the EuroChem Group supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbass. Furthermore, SUEK did not sign any contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea. The proposition that it is impossible to run a large, successful undertaking in Russia without the government’s support in exchange for loyalty and support for government policies is insufficient justification for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. In his reply, the applicant states that the payment of taxes does not amount to the provision of support. 167 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments and contends that he was responsible for providing quantitatively and qualitatively significant support to the Russian Government through the companies he managed, first, on account of their contribution to the budget of the Russian State and, secondly, by the support provided to government policies as set out in criterion (a). In particular, it states that both the fertiliser industry and the coal industry are strategic sectors offering a major source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the direct taxes alone paid by EuroChem and SUEK distinguish them from ordinary companies. Lastly, the Council contends that those companies actively supported specific policies of the Russian Government by supplying fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas and by financing some employees’ holidays in Crimea. 168 The Council also argues that it is in the context of the analysis of criterion (f) alone that the revenues generated by individual companies are of importance. It maintains that it did not consider only taxes to be a form of support to the government, but also the strategic leverage that SUEK and EuroChem provided in sectors of key importance due to their exports. 169 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] First of all, it should be recalled that, in the September 2022 acts, the Council referred to the applicant’s position as CEO of EuroChem, even though he had resigned from that position when those acts were adopted (see paragraphs 136 to 155 above). Therefore, the applicant’s argument that he does not occupy any position in those companies must be upheld as regards the assertion in the grounds that he ‘is the CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG’. 170 In that regard, although the Council was entitled to rely on the link between the applicant and EuroChem in the case of the initial acts, that link was no longer valid in the case of the September 2022 acts. 171 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Next, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 141 above, it is for the Council to put forward sufficiently probative evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that the person concerned still supports, materially or financially, the Government of the Russian Federation, justifying the inclusion of that person’s name on the list, even after his or her resignation (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 July 2014, Alchaar v Council, T‑203/12, not published, EU:T:2014:602, paragraph 150 and the case-law cited). 172 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] The Council has failed to adduce any evidence showing that the applicant supported, materially or financially, the Government of the Russian Federation such as to justify the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue under criterion (f). On the contrary, notwithstanding the case-law cited in paragraph 132 above, it relied on the same evidence justifying the initial inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, which essentially related to his former positions at EuroChem and SUEK, despite the changes in his situation. 173 In addition, it should be noted that criterion (f), which is concerned with ‘natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, … the Government of the Russian Federation’, is clearly worded in the present case (see, by analogy, judgment of 8 March 2023, Prigozhina v Council, T‑212/22, not published, EU:T:2023:104, paragraph 92). Therefore, since the applicant no longer held any position at EuroChem or SUEK on the date of the adoption of the September 2022 acts, he was not able to provide such support through those companies. 174 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Lastly, as regards the Council’s claim regarding the supply of fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas, the Court has found, in paragraph 155 above, that the Council has failed to adduce any evidence to establish a link between the applicant and that supply. Similarly, as regards the alleged signature of contracts by SUEK with sanatoriums in Crimea for employee health programmes, the Court has also found that that claim was not substantiated by Exhibit 5a in the first WK file and, therefore, did not have a sufficiently solid factual basis (see paragraphs 156 to 160 above). 175 Consequently, in the light of the foregoing, the applicant’s arguments in respect of criterion (f) must be upheld as regards the September 2022 acts. 176 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the grounds for listing in the September 2022 acts relating to criteria (a), (f) and (g) are not sufficiently substantiated, with the result that those acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant. (c) The March 2023 acts 177 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, in the statement of reasons for the March 2023 acts relied on against the applicant, the Council stated that the applicant was 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 continue[d] to exert influence through shell companies’, that ‘previously (between 2004 and 2020) he was the CEO of a coal company JSC SUEK’, and that ‘these are major Russian companies – co-owned by Aleksandra Melnichenko, the wife of Russian billionaire Andrei Melnichenko’. 178 In support of its argument that the March 2023 acts are well founded in respect of the applicant, the Council refers to the second WK file, containing three exhibits, namely: – an article from the EuroChem website announcing the applicant’s resignation (Exhibit 1); – an article from the website ‘rambler.ru’, published on 18 March 2022 (Exhibit 2); – an article from the media outlet De Tijd, published on 28 March 2022 (Exhibit 3). 179 The applicant states that Exhibit 3 in the second WK file describes him as the CEO of EuroChem one week after his resignation. He disputes the probative value of that article for the purposes of the March 2023 acts, adopted one year after its publication. The applicant also reiterates that past conduct cannot provide sufficient grounds for the imposition of restrictive measures and that the Council has no evidence that his resignation was staged. 180 Moreover, the applicant submits that none of the exhibits in the second WK file shows that he exerts influence over the Russian Government. According to the applicant, the claim that he exerts influence over EuroChem through shell companies cannot validly be supported by the evidence adduced by the Council, in particular Exhibit 2 in the second WK file. 181 Finally, the applicant maintains that the information to the effect that EuroChem and SUEK are co-owned by Aleksandra Melnichenko is irrelevant for the purposes of his listing. He states that the remainder of the statement of reasons is unchanged and that he was not invited by President Putin to the meeting of 24 February 2022. He also refers to the role played by the RSPP, which he claims has challenged the policies of the Russian Government on many occasions. 182 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. Although it accepts that the applicant resigned from his position as CEO of EuroChem on the day on which the restrictive measures were imposed, the Council nevertheless contends that the effects of that resignation had to be assessed in order to check that it was not fictitious and maintains that that position was still relevant in the light of criterion (g). The Council considered that the applicant continued to be an important businessperson since he maintained links with EuroChem and that the word ‘leading’ cannot be interpreted restrictively. The Council also notes that the applicant maintained his positions at the RSPP. 183 As regards Exhibit 2 in the second WK file, the Council takes the view that, although the translation might contain errors regarding the applicant’s relationship with EuroChem, the statement that he continues to hold directorships in companies related to SUEK is not disputed by the applicant. Moreover, the fact that the publisher decided to withdraw the article in question in no way proves that its content was inaccurate, since that withdrawal could be the result of pressure exerted by the applicant. In response to the applicant’s criticism of the reliability of Exhibit 2 in the second WK file, the Council produces Annex F1 to its observations on the first statement of modification, which it claims shows that the applicant continued to be a member of the board of directors of Siberian Generating Company LLC (‘SGC’), a company related to SUEK. Accordingly, the exhibits in the second WK file support the conclusion that the applicant remained active in the energy sector. 184 Lastly, the Council states that the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022 also bolsters the conclusion that he supports or implements actions threatening the territorial integrity of Ukraine, evidenced by the fact that he was responsible for providing quantitatively and qualitatively significant support to the Russian Government on account of (i) the contribution of the companies he managed to the budget of the Russian Federation, and (ii) the support provided to the policies of the Government of the Russian Federation. (1) Criterion (g) 185 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] In the first place, it should be recalled, as is clear from paragraph 140 above, that the previous positions of the applicant as CEO of EuroChem and CEO of SUEK cannot, in themselves alone, constitute sufficient evidence that he continued to hold the status of leading businessperson active in sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation. Therefore, for the purposes of assessing criterion (g), it is necessary to determine whether the evidence submitted by the Council constitutes a set of indicia that is sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to support the ground that the applicant ‘continue[d] to exert influence through shell companies’. 186 In that regard, it should be noted that that assertion is based on Exhibit 2 in the second WK file, which is an excerpt from a news article published on the website ‘rambler.ru’, worded as follows: ‘According to a similar scheme, Andrey Melnichenko, the former owner of SUEK, has now come out of the sanctions. On March 10, a statement appeared about his resignation from the board of directors and the termination of his ownership of the company. “By the end of 2021, the legal entity representing Andrey Melnichenko’s business interests indirectly owned 92.2% of the company’s shares. After Mr Melnichenko left the Board of Directors and the number of SUEK’s beneficiaries, his controlled share was reduced to 0%,” SUEK said in a press release. Judging by SPARK-Interfax, 100% of SUEK is directly owned by the Cypriot SUEK Holdings. Its director is the enigmatic [A], one of the top managers of Dominanto Holdings and Exactco Holdings. Both of them are also registered in Cyprus and both of them have Vladimir Rashevsky as a director. He, like Melnichenko, was a member of the board of directors of SUEK and, having fallen under sanctions, left him. He also resigned from the position of chief executive officer of EuroChem, also controlled by Andrey Melnichenko (he pulled off a similar scheme, as in the case of SUEK, to “get rid of” EuroChem).’ 187 It should be noted that while that article states that A is director of SUEK’s Cypriot holding companies and, in addition, is one of the senior managers at Dominanto Holdings and Exactco Holdings, also registered in Cyprus, it simply mentions that the applicant is director of Dominanto Holdings and Exactco Holdings. It therefore only follows from the article that A is a ‘top manager’ in two companies in which the applicant is director and that she is also director of SUEK’s Cypriot holding companies. Therefore, the link referred to between the applicant and A does not prove the existence of shell companies and does not mean that the applicant continues to exert influence over SUEK through such companies. Moreover, it should be noted that the ground according to which the applicant ‘continues to exert influence through shell companies’ appears to refer exclusively to EuroChem and that influence over SUEK is not mentioned in the grounds. 188 In addition, as regards the applicant’s possible influence over EuroChem through shell companies, the article provided by the Council merely states that ‘he pulled off a similar scheme, as in the case of SUEK, to “get rid of” EuroChem’ and that ‘100% of the EuroChem shares are owned by the Swiss EuroChem Group. It was not possible to find out who is behind the EuroChem Group, but it could be someone from Andrey Melnichenko’s entourage, even if he is the most ordinary purchasing or sales manager’. 189 In that regard, it should be noted that the Council itself, in its observations on the first statement of modification, acknowledges that the translation might contain errors regarding the applicant’s relationship with EuroChem. Thus, the article in question does not make it possible to determine with sufficient certainty whether it was the applicant or Mr Melnichenko who ‘pulled off a similar scheme, as in the case of SUEK, to “get rid of” EuroChem’. In addition, that article states that it is not possible to identify who is behind EuroChem. Accordingly, there is no indication given in Exhibit 2 in the second WK file that the applicant exerted any influence over EuroChem through shell companies. 190 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Since it is apparent from paragraphs 188 and 189 that influence on the part of the applicant through shell companies cannot be considered to be sufficiently established, the conclusions to be drawn from the publisher’s removal of the article filed as Exhibit 2 cannot be decisive. Moreover, Exhibit 2 is not supported by other evidence and cannot in itself be sufficient. 191 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that, for the purposes of establishing whether the March 2023 acts are well founded, the Council has not provided a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the proposition that the applicant was a leading businessperson involved in sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation within the meaning of criterion (g). 192 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] That finding cannot be called into question, first, by the Council’s argument that the applicant continues to be a leading businessperson because he is still a member of the RSPP. As stated in paragraph 143 above, that information does not relate to the statement of reasons for the March 2023 acts either and cannot therefore be taken into account by the Court. 193 Secondly, as regards the evidence produced by the Council during the litigation stage before the Court, consisting of an extract from the Spark-Interfax companies register attesting to the applicant’s membership of the board of directors of SGC, it must in any event be found that, even though the document appears to show that the applicant exerted influence over that company, it is not possible to infer therefrom that he would have exerted influence over SUEK through SGC. 194 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Thirdly, as regards the Council’s argument concerning the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022, suffice it to recall that such participation is not in itself sufficient to establish that his listing under criterion (g) was well founded, as is apparent from paragraph 145 above. 195 In the second place, the Council acknowledges that the reference in the statement of reasons for the March 2023 acts to the effect that EuroChem and SUEK are ‘co-owned by Aleksandra Melnichenko’ is a purely factual assertion which has no bearing on the applicant’s situation. 196 Therefore, it must be held that the Council has failed to adduce a body of precise and consistent evidence to support the applicant’s listing under criterion (g). (2) Criteria (a) and (f) 197 First, it must be borne in mind that the grounds for listing relating to criterion (a) set out in the March 2023 acts are the same as those in the September 2022 acts and are based on the supply by EuroChem of ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas, on the contracts signed by SUEK with sanatoriums in Crimea for employee health programmes, and on the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022. 198 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] It is apparent from paragraphs 152 and 165 above that, as regards criterion (a), the Council has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the applicant’s listing under that criterion and it has adduced no evidence to that effect in the second WK file. 199 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Secondly, as regards criterion (f), the grounds for listing are essentially based on the influence exerted by the applicant over EuroChem or SUEK. Since the Council has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the existence of such influence, as is clear from paragraphs 185 to 190 above, it cannot be held that those grounds justify maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue in the light of criterion (f). 200 Consequently, the grounds for listing in the March 2023 acts relating to criteria (a) and (f) are not sufficiently substantiated. 201 Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Council has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence capable of sufficiently substantiating the grounds on the basis of which the March 2023 acts maintained the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, under criteria (a), (f) and (g), with the result that those acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant. (d) The September 2023 acts 202 The applicant reiterates, in essence, the arguments put forward in the application and in the first statement of modification. In the first place, he disputes the merits of the claim that he continues to exert influence over EuroChem through shell companies. In the second place, he submits that he has no links to the alleged supply by EuroChem of fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbass. In the third place, he argues that he has no responsibility whatsoever for the alleged contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea. In the fourth place, he denies being a member of Vladimir Putin’s inner circle. 203 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. In the first place, it states that the new evidence files which it notified to the applicant contained information concerning his positions at SGC and the Skolkovo Foundation. The Council also asserts that, although additional material was examined and notified to the applicant so that he could submit observations on it, it was not considered to constitute separate grounds. 204 In the second place, the Council contends that the applicant continues to be an important businessperson and is still active in the energy and fertilisers sectors, even after resigning from his high-level positions, in particular having regard to his membership of the board of directors of SGC. 205 In the third place, the Council maintains that the other grounds for listing relating to criteria (a) and (f) remain valid. That is also demonstrated, in particular, by the applicant’s positions as a member of the board of the RSPP, as chair of the Mining and Industrial Complex Commission, as deputy chair of the Committee on Climate Policy and Carbon Regulation, and as head of the Coordination Council for the Siberian District, as attested by paragraph 39 of the application. 206 In the fourth place, the Council draws attention to Exhibit 1 in the third and fourth WK files, showing that the applicant continues to be a member of the board of directors of SGC. It also submits that the evidence adduced by the applicant to challenge that exhibit was not provided in tempore non suspecto and is unreliable. 207 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that the grounds for listing the applicant were not amended, but that the Council put forward additional evidence in order to substantiate that listing. 208 In that regard, first, the third WK file contains a file comprising six new items of evidence, namely: – Exhibit 1, which is an extract from the ‘spark-interfax.ru’ website, dated 4 May 2023, showing that the applicant is a member of the board of directors of SGC, which, according to the Council, is part of the SUEK group of companies; – Exhibit 2, which is an extract from the official website of SGC, dated 4 May 2023; – Exhibit 3, which is an extract from the website of the ‘crunchbase.com’ database, dated 4 May 2023, showing that the applicant is chair of the board of the Skolkovo Foundation, an organisation established by the Russian Government in 2010; – Exhibit 4, which is also an extract from the website of the ‘crunchbase.com’ database, dated 4 May 2023, containing details about the Skolkovo Foundation; – Exhibit 5, which is an extract from the official website of the Skolkovo Foundation, dated 4 May 2023, showing that that foundation had been included in a government programme for economic development and innovation; – Exhibit 6, which is an extract from the website ‘opensanctions.org’, dated 21 March 2023, reproducing information relating to the restrictive measures to which the applicant is subject. 209 Secondly, the fourth WK file contains eight items of evidence. Exhibits 1 to 4 in the fourth WK file are identical to Exhibits 1 to 4 in the third WK file, listed in paragraph 208 above. The fourth WK file also contains four other exhibits, namely: – Exhibit 5, which is an article from the Russian news outlet Kommersant, dated 25 May 2018, showing that SGC participated in public contracts in the energy sector in Russia and that the owner of SUEK, Andrey Melnichenko, was considering a merger between SGC and SUEK; – Exhibit 6, which is an extract from the website of the local news outlet ‘newslab.ru’, dating from 2023, confirming the role of SGC in the energy sector; – Exhibit 7, which is an article published on the website of the local news outlet ‘newslab.ru’ on 9 September 2016 describing a meeting between the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Krai region and the management of SUEK and SGC, including the applicant, at that time general director of SUEK and member of the board of directors of SGC; – Exhibit 8, which is an article published on the website of the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS, dated 18 May 2020, concerning a management reshuffle at SUEK and its subsidiary SGK. 210 The applicant maintains that the information provided by the Spark-Interfax database (Exhibit 1 in the third and fourth WK files) is incorrect and that he is not a member of the board of directors of SGC, and he submits evidence in rebuttal to that effect. 211 In the first place, it is necessary to examine whether the applicant’s position at SGC, on which the Council relies, is capable of demonstrating that the ground for listing, according to which ‘he continues to exert influence through shell companies’, is well founded. 212 In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that the relevant part of the statement of reasons for the September 2023 acts states, in the first place, that the applicant is the former CEO and director of EuroChem; in the second place, that he officially resigned from those positions following the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue; in the third place, that he nevertheless continues to exert influence through shell companies; in the fourth place, that EuroChem is one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers; and, in the fifth place, that previously (between 2004 and 2020), he was the CEO of SUEK. Accordingly, it follows from reading the statement of reasons that that influence through shell companies refers to EuroChem, not SUEK. It does not in any way follow from Exhibits 1 and 2 in the third and fourth WK files that there was a link between SGC and EuroChem. Quite the opposite: while SGC was active in the energy sector, EuroChem’s business is in the fertiliser sector. 213 Furthermore, even if a very broad reading of the statement of reasons were to permit the inference that ‘[the applicant’s] influence through shell companies’ also covered SUEK, it is not sufficiently clear from the third and fourth WK files that the applicant exerted such influence through SGC. It is apparent from Exhibit 1 in the third and fourth WK files and Exhibit 8 in the fourth WK file that it was SUEK which was the founding company of SGC, or its parent company, which presupposes that SUEK was able to exert influence over SGC, not the other way around. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred from those exhibits that SGC was a ‘shell company’ in relation to SUEK. Consequently, membership of the board of directors of a subsidiary of SUEK does not prove that the applicant continued to exert influence over that company through a shell company. 214 In any event, as regards whether the facts observed by the Council are materially accurate, it must be borne in mind that, in his letters of 3 and 24 July 2023, in response to the Council’s correspondence of 19 June and 10 July 2023, the applicant adduced evidence to support the contention that he had stood down from his position at SGC. In those letters, he also submits, providing supporting evidence, that he had stood down from his position at the Skolkovo Foundation in 2019. 215 In its letter of 15 September 2023 informing the applicant of its decision to maintain his listing, the Council states that the evidence adduced by the applicant had been ‘taken into account’. 216 Since the Council simply asserts that the evidence was not produced in tempore non suspecto and is unreliable, it must be held that the Council has failed to refute that evidence. As regards the reliability of that evidence, it should be noted that, although the applicant provides extracts from the Spark-Interfax website (Annexes 1 and 6 to the applicant’s letter of 3 July 2023), the Council itself relied on extracts from the same website (Exhibit 1 in the third WK file). Moreover, it was only after receiving the Council’s letters of 19 June 2023 that the applicant had the opportunity to challenge them. 217 In the second place, as regards the Council’s reasoning based on the applicant’s alleged status as member of the board of directors of SGC and on the activities of that company in the energy sector, in order to substantiate his status as a ‘businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’, within the meaning of criterion (g) as amended, it must be held that such reasoning is not based on any link with the statement of reasons. Unless a substitution of grounds is admitted, the Council cannot rely on evidence to support an assertion which is in no way related to the reasons as they appear in the lists at issue. That assertion relates to a company which is not mentioned anywhere in the statement of reasons, which are based, as recalled in paragraph 212 above, on the influence exerted by the applicant over EuroChem and SUEK through shell companies. 218 Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the Council acknowledges that, after examining the new evidence submitted by the applicant, it decided, in essence, that the earlier reasons were sufficient and that it was not necessary to amend them. In that regard, although material in the evidence file may supplement certain aspects of the statement of reasons, by linking to the latter, such material cannot be permitted to replace that statement of reasons. In the present case, it is impossible to identify the aspect of the statement of reasons to which the material concerning the applicant’s position at SGC relates. 219 The same applies to the applicant’s position at the Skolkovo Foundation. The evidence provided by the Council in that regard is not related to any part of the statement of reasons. Moreover, it is not clear whether that evidence goes to proving that the applicant continues to be either a ‘leading businessperson operating in Russia’ or a ‘businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’, within the meaning of criterion (g) as amended, or whether he benefits from the Russian Government, within the meaning of criterion (f). Moreover, as regards criterion (g), the applicant’s position in a foundation even a governmental one and even one involved in economic development projects is not, in itself, capable of demonstrating that he is a ‘businessperson’. 220 In that regard, it must be observed that a scenario in which the Council could put forward new reasons that differ from those set out in the contested acts in order to regularise the absence of a statement of reasons or to correct factual inaccuracies in the statement of reasons for those acts would undermine the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2023, QF v Council, T‑386/22, not published, EU:T:2023:670, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited). 221 Thirdly, Exhibits 5, 7 and 8 in the fourth WK file, which concern the applicant’s position at SGC and the links between that company and SUEK, are not relevant to proving that, on the date of adoption of the September 2023 acts, the applicant was a member of the board of directors of that company. Those documents date from 2016, 2018 and 2020 and the applicant does not dispute that he was still a board member on those dates. 222 In the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Council has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to demonstrate that the applicant continued to be a leading businessperson operating in Russia or a businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation. 223 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] As regards criteria (a) and (f), it is clear from paragraph 198 above that, as regards the March 2023 acts, the Council has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence capable of sufficiently substantiating the ground for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, under those criteria, since it was not able to establish that the applicant exerted control over EuroChem and SUEK. Since the Council has failed to adduce evidence of such control, the findings made in paragraphs 165, 175 and 200 apply a fortiori to the September 2023 acts. 224 Thus, it must be concluded that the Council has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence capable of demonstrating that the applicant was a leading businessperson, that he supported the Russian Government, or that he was responsible for actions or policies which undermined or threatened the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, for the purposes of establishing that the September 2023 acts were well founded, with the result that those acts must be annulled. 225 In the light of all of the foregoing, the third plea in law in Case T‑739/22 must be upheld and, therefore, the September 2022 acts, the March 2023 acts and the September 2023 acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, without it being necessary to examine the other pleas in law and arguments put forward in support of the action in that case. V. Costs 226 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. 227 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful in Case T‑309/22, he must be ordered to pay the costs in that case, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Council. 228 Since the Council has been largely unsuccessful in Case T‑739/22, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Joins Cases T‑309/22 and T‑739/22 for the purposes of the judgment; 2. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, 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, 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, Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 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, in so far as those acts concern Mr Vladimir Rashevsky; 3. Dismisses the action in Case T‑309/22; 4. Dismisses the action in Case T‑739/22 as to the remainder; 5. Orders Mr Rashevsky to pay the costs in Case T‑309/22; 6. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in Case T‑739/22. Spielmann Mastroianni Gâlea Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 July 2024. V. Di Bucci Registrar President * Language of the case: English.