Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:841
Date: 2025-09-10
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

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, is 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 15 November 2023, OT v Council, T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 122). 39 It is the task of the competent European Union 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. There is no requirement, for that purpose, that the Council produce before the Courts of the European Union all the information and evidence underlying the reasons alleged in the act of which annulment is sought. It is necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied on against the person or entity 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 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraphs 66 and 67; see, also, judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v Council, T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 123 and the case-law cited). 40 The assessment of whether the factual basis adopted by the Council is sufficiently solid 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 concrete, 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). 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 they describe (see judgment of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission, T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 108 and the case-law cited). 41 It should also be pointed out 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 incumbent on 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 achieve the objectives pursued by the initial inclusion of the names of the persons and entities concerned on the list 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; see, also, judgment of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited). 42 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 as that which justified the initial inclusion, the re-inclusion or a previous maintenance of the name of the person concerned on the list, provided that (i) the reasons 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 was 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). 43 It is in the light of those case-law principles that the Court must determine whether the Council made an error of assessment by finding that, in the present case, there was a sufficiently solid factual basis to justify maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue pursuant to the (f) criterion and the amended (g) criterion. Application of the amended (g) criterion to the applicant 44 As regards the first part of the amended (g) criterion, two conditions must be satisfied, that is to say, first, it must be possible to categorise the person concerned as a ‘leading businessperson’ and, second, that person must operate in Russia. 45 In that regard, it must be noted that the first part of the amended (g) criterion reproduces the concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ used in Article 2(1) and (2) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329, with the consequence that that concept must be interpreted in the same way, namely as referring to the importance of those businesspersons taking into account, according to the particular case, their professional status, the importance of their economic activities, the extent of their capital holdings or their functions within one or more undertakings in which they pursue those activities (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v Council, T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 143). 46 In other words, the amendment made to the (g) criterion by Decision 2023/1094 does not concern the definition of the concept of leading businesspersons as such, but was intended, as is apparent from recital 4 of that decision, to extend the scope of the restrictive measures so that they apply to all leading businesspersons, including not only those who are involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government but those who operate in any economic sector of Russia whatsoever. 47 As regards the third part of the amended (g) criterion, it should be noted that, because the word ‘leading’ has been removed, the third part of the amended (g) criterion no longer concerns only ‘leading’ persons within the meaning of the (g) criterion as it appeared in Article 2(1) and (2) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329. Nevertheless, the expression ‘leading businesspersons’ cannot refer to all economic operators and refers rather to those pursuing a qualitatively or quantitatively non-negligible economic activity in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government, in respect of whom the inclusion of their names on the lists at issue is therefore likely to increase pressure on Russia and to increase the costs of its actions to undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. Targeting businesspersons who operate in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government is liable to increase the costs of its actions, since they contribute, directly or indirectly, to the capacity of that government to wage its war of aggression against Ukraine (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 January 2025, Kantor v Council, T‑748/22, not published, EU:T:2025:6, paragraphs 184 and 185). 48 In the present case, it must be noted that it is common ground that the Council, in the contested acts, found that the applicant met the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. Furthermore, it is clear that the reasons relied on in those acts in respect of the applicant and which relate to the amended (g) criterion concern, first, his positions within two bodies, namely the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) and the Sverdlovsk Regional Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (SOSPP); second, the fact that he held senior positions at large Russian metallurgical enterprises, specifically his former positions as Chairman of the board of directors of TMK and as President and a board member of Group Sinara; third, ownership and control of DRV Invest JSC; and, fourth, the fact that he participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 and in the RSPP congress in March 2023 (‘the March 2023 congress’) and that he was awarded the ‘Order of Merit for the Fatherland’, IV degree, the Order of Honour (see paragraphs 24 and 27 above). It should be added that, at the hearing, the Council claimed, in essence, that in view of, first, the letter of 13 September 2024 referred to in paragraph 25 above and, second, the judgment of 22 April 2021, Council v PKK (C‑46/19 P, EU:C:2021:316), the fact that the applicant remains very involved in Group Sinara and continues to control TMK supplements the reasons in the fifth set of maintaining acts. By the same token, the Council argued at the hearing that, in view of the content of the letter of 17 March 2025 referred to in paragraph 28 above, the fact that the applicant continues to have close contact, at least with Group Sinara, supplements the reasons in the sixth set of maintaining acts. 49 As regards the fifth set of maintaining acts, the applicant submits, in essence, that, on the same grounds as those relied on in Case T‑740/22 that gave rise to the judgment of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418), by which the third set of maintaining acts were annulled, the Court should find that the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion cannot be applied to him, and should annul the fifth set of maintaining acts. 50 As regards the sixth set of maintaining acts, the applicant submits, first of all, in essence, that those acts must be annulled because they contain factual allegations that are less precise than those already rejected by the Court. Next, the applicant adds that, since all the evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT predates the closure of the written procedure in the present case, it must be declared inadmissible under Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in the event that the Council submits that evidence in its observations on the statement of modification. Last, he claims that, even assuming that the evidence contained in file WK 1649/2025 INIT is admissible, it is not such as to substantiate his classification as a ‘leading businessperson’ or as a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. According to the applicant, contrary to the Council’s argument, the amendment made to the (g) criterion by Decision 2023/1094 does not relate to the definition of the concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ as such but relates only to the range of sectors of the Russian economy in which those leading businesspersons operate. 51 The Council disputes the applicant’s arguments. In essence, it submits that the factual basis supporting the reasons in the contested acts, as they are set out in paragraphs 24 and 27 above, and the evidence contained in files WK 9906/2024 INIT and WK 1649/2025 INIT, prove that the applicant remained very involved in Group Sinara, that he continued to control TMK and that he was therefore still a leading businessperson within the meaning of the first part of the amended (g) criterion. 52 In the present case, it should be noted at the outset that the general context of the situation in Ukraine, as regards the threats to its territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, has remained unchanged since the initial acts were adopted. 53 It is therefore necessary to examine whether, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 41 and 42 above, the Council duly took into account changes in the applicant’s situation for the purposes of deciding to maintain his name on the lists at issue and whether, in particular, it could, following its updated assessment of the situation carried out in the context of the review of the restrictive measures at issue and on the basis of new evidence, continue to base itself, in part, on past situations already relied on both in the initial acts and in the first to fourth sets of maintaining acts. To that end, it is therefore necessary to examine whether it is apparent from the WK files that the applicant could be regarded, on the date of adoption of the contested acts, as a ‘leading businessperson operating in Russia’ or as a ‘businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [Russian Government]’ within the meaning of the amended (g) criterion. 54 As a preliminary point, it is necessary to note that by its judgments of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418), and of 2 April 2025, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑272/24, not published, EU:T:2025:351), the Court annulled the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts respectively, in so far as they concerned the applicant, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Council in the WK files did not constitute a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to substantiate to the requisite legal standard, on the date on which those acts were adopted, the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue pursuant to the amended (g) criterion. 55 As regards, in the first place, the reason relating to his positions within the RSPP and the SOSPP, the Court found, in paragraphs 131 to 134 of the judgment of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418), that the Council had failed to adduce a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to establish to the requisite legal standard that that part of the reasons was well founded. First, the Court stated that the evidence produced contained very little information as to the nature, purpose and role in Russia of those bodies. Second, it stated that, in any event, whatever positions were held by the applicant within those bodies and even though he participated in the March 2023 congress in his capacity as a member of the RSPP, the Council had entirely failed to explain how, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had resigned from his positions on the boards of TMK and of Sinara on 9 March 2022, the mere fact of being a member of those bodies made it possible to find that he met the conditions under the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. The Court also added, in paragraph 71 of the judgment of 2 April 2025, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑272/24, not published, EU:T:2025:351), that the Council could not validly argue that his status as a member of the RSPP was sufficient in itself to find that the applicant satisfied the conditions of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion, because the significance of the RSPP was not apparent from the evidence produced by the Council in the various WK files. 56 As regards, in the second place, the reason concerning his former positions as Chairman of the board of directors of TMK and as President and a board member of Sinara, the Court found, in paragraphs 124 to 130 of the judgment of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418), that the Council had failed to adduce a sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent body of evidence establishing to the requisite legal standard that that part of the reasons was well founded. First, the Court noted, in essence, that the fact that the applicant had been Chairman of the board of directors of TMK and President and a board member of Sinara at the time of the initial inclusion of his name on the lists at issue, in other words, a year and a half before the adoption of the third set of maintaining acts, could not be considered capable of constituting sufficient evidence that he continued to have the status of ‘leading businessperson’ or ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. It added that the Council had not adduced any conclusive evidence relating to the applicant in the WK files or in the course of the action making it possible to explain why he was still to be regarded as satisfying the conditions of the amended (g) criterion. Second, as regards the Council’s argument that the applicant remains very involved in TMK and Sinara, the Court found in paragraph 128 of the judgment of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418), that the Council had acknowledged that it did not have any evidence demonstrating that the applicant retained any influence over TMK and Group Sinara. 57 In paragraph 67 of the judgment of 2 April 2025, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑272/24, not published, EU:T:2025:351), the Court found that, even though the sole purpose of DRV Invest JSC was to manage the funds that the applicant had obtained by selling the shares he held in TMK and in Sinara and that, as a result, that company acted only as the applicant’s wealth manager, as the evidence produced in Case T‑272/24 suggested, the fact remained that the Council had not demonstrated that DRV Invest JSC made significant investments in Russian undertakings or in the Russian economy. 58 As regards, in the third place, the reason relating to the fact that the applicant had participated in the 24 February 2022 meeting and that he had been awarded the ‘Order of Merit for the Fatherland’, IV degree, the Order of Honour, the Court found in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the judgment of 2 April 2025, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑272/24, not published, EU:T:2025:351), that the Council had entirely failed to explain how, even though the applicant had resigned from his positions on the boards of directors of TMK and Sinara, the fact that he had participated in that meeting and had been awarded that honour made it possible to find that the applicant is a ‘leading businessperson’ or a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. 59 In the present case, it is clear that the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue set out in the contested acts are, essentially, comparable to the reasons that were contained in the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts. In the fifth set of maintaining acts, compared with the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts, the Council removed the reference to the applicant being ‘Vice-President, member of the Bureau of the Board’ of the RSPP and ‘a Member of the Council of [the] Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) of the Russian Federation’. In addition, the Council added the information that ‘he [owned] and [controlled] DRV Invest JSC, a company engaged in investment’. As regards the sixth set of maintaining acts, the Council merely clarified that the RSPP Committee on Industrial Policy and Technical Regulation had become the ‘Committee on Technical Regulation’ and that the applicant ‘[had] owned DRV Invest JSC’. 60 For the purposes of adopting the fifth set of maintaining acts, the Council relied on the evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT. As regards the sixth set of maintaining acts, it relied on the evidence contained in file WK 1649/2025 INIT. 61 It is therefore necessary to determine whether that evidence is capable of substantiating the reasons for inclusion relating to the first and third parts of the (g) criterion. – The fifth set of maintaining acts 62 In essence, the Council claims that it is apparent from the six publicly accessible items of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT, consisting of, inter alia, press articles, website extracts and extracts from company registers, that the applicant remains a leading businessperson within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. 63 In respect of that evidence, it should be noted that the first two items, which are taken from the website of the Office of the President of the Russian Federation and an article published on the ‘Pervo.info’ website respectively, refer to the presence of the applicant during a visit, in the context of a project to extend Russia’s high-speed train infrastructure, by President Vladimir Putin and other political figures to the electric train assembly complex of Ural Locomotives, which is part of Group Sinara. The third item of evidence, consisting of an article from the Ura News news agency, relates to the presence of the applicant and of the director general of Sinara at an evening event held to celebrate the ninetieth anniversary of the region of Sverdlovsk (Russia). The fourth and fifth items, taken from the register of Cypriot companies and authorities and from the Russian public register of legal entities respectively, state that the applicant is a director of TMK Steel Holding and that that company’s email address is in Cyprus. As regards the sixth item, it consists of an article from the European-Asian News news agency, published only a few days after the applicant’s resignation from his positions within TMK and within Group Sinara, in which a financial analyst states that it is unlikely that the applicant has given up control of TMK since the senior management of all the TMK companies is controlled by the Cypriot company TMK Steel Holding. 64 In order to show that the conditions laid down in the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion are satisfied, the Council, in the first place, refers again to the applicant’s former positions within TMK and Sinara and to the links that he allegedly still maintains at least with Group Sinara. 65 In that regard, it should be noted that, in so far as concerns the evidence in the WK files sent for the purposes of adoption of the initial acts and of the first to fourth sets of maintaining acts, all of which is mentioned in the judgments of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418), and of 2 April 2025, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑272/24, not published, EU:T:2025:351), and all of which was examined by the Court in those judgments, the Council’s arguments must be rejected on the same grounds as those set out in paragraph 56 above, which apply mutatis mutandis in the present case. 66 As regards the evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT, it should be held, first, that, unless a substitution of grounds is admitted, the fact that certain items of evidence refer to the applicant allegedly being a director of TMK Steel Holding or to the senior management of all the TMK companies being controlled by the Cypriot company TMK Steel Holding cannot validly be regarded as demonstrating that the conditions laid down in the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion are satisfied. It is clear that the reasons for the inclusion of the applicant’s name given in the fifth set of maintaining acts relate to his former positions as Chairman of the board of directors of TMK and have no connection whatsoever with TMK Steel Holding (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 29 November 2023, Pumpyanskiy v Council, T‑734/22, not published, EU:T:2023:761, paragraph 77). 67 Second, referring to the judgment of 22 January 2025, Melnichenko v Council (T‑271/22, not published, EU:T:2025:47), the Council submits that the applicant’s former positions within Group Sinara remain relevant because he hosted President Vladimir Putin at a company that forms part of that group, as is clear from the first two items of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT, and because he still maintains close relations with that group as is apparent from the first five items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT. 68 As regards the line of argument that the first five items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT show that the applicant still maintains close relations with Group Sinara, those arguments cannot but be rejected. 69 It should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the legality of an EU act must be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and law existing at the date on which the act was adopted. Accordingly, the Council cannot rely, before the Court, on factors on which it did not rely when adopting the contested acts in order to justify the inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 April 2021, Al-Tarazi v Council, T‑260/19, not published, EU:T:2021:187, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited). 70 In the present case, suffice it to note that the first five items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT are all dated subsequently to the fifth set of maintaining acts and contain information that does not support any evidence contained in file WK 9906/2024 INIT. In those circumstances, the Council cannot rely on the information contained in those items of evidence in order to justify the validity of the fifth set of maintaining acts. 71 As regards the line of argument relating to the first two items of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT, those arguments cannot succeed. 72 First of all, it should be recalled that, in the present case, the applicant resigned from his positions more than two years before the adoption of the fifth set of maintaining acts, by contrast to the day before as occurred in the situation put before the Court in the case giving rise to the judgment of 22 January 2025, Melnichenko v Council (T‑271/22, not published, EU:T:2025:47). 73 Next, while the first two items of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT admittedly show that the applicant was present, in his capacity as President of the SOSPP, during the visit of President Vladimir Putin and other political figures to the electric train assembly complex of Ural Locomotives, which is part of Group Sinara, it is not in any way apparent therefrom that the applicant ‘hosted’ the President. 74 Last, contrary to the Council’s claims in the summary of the first item of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT and in the defence, the fact that the applicant answered ‘[that is] right, [we are] ready, Mr Putin’, after being addressed by the latter, cannot be interpreted as meaning that the applicant is a shareholder or executive of Ural Locomotives. 75 It is necessary to note, as the applicant does, that, first, since the project to extend Russia’s high-speed train infrastructure concerns the Ural region, it is normal for political figures to visit the businesses in the region participating in such projects, which is the case of the company Ural Locomotives, and for representatives of the chambers of commerce in the region to be present and to say a few words where applicable, as was the applicant’s case. 76 Second, it is clear from reading the whole of the first item of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT that the Council takes the single sentence spoken by the applicant out of context and attaches disproportionate significance to it. 77 In that regard, what was said by President Vladimir Putin in his speech during his visit to Ural Locomotives and by the applicant can be reported as follows: ‘The implementation of the [high-speed line] project, the creation of all the necessary infrastructure and rolling stock[,] should be carried out precisely on our own technological base. Now at [Ural Locomotives], we talked about this with the shareholders and managers of the company. In general, they are ready for this. (Turning to [Mr Pumpyanskiy]) Right, Dmitry Alexandrovich? [To which Mr Pumpyanskiy, who was attending the event, answered] [That is] right, [we are] ready, Mr Putin.’ 78 It is admittedly true that, on the basis solely of the words spoken at the time of President Vladimir Putin’s speech during his visit to Ural Locomotives, which are reproduced above, the fact that the applicant answered in the affirmative using the pronoun ‘we’ might suggest that he is one of the executives and shareholders of that company, in particular as the current executives, that is to say Mr Mikhail Khodorovsky (President of Group Sinara) and Mr Viktor Lesch (the director general of that group), were present during that visit, and as they did not speak at any point during President Putin’s visit, as reproduced in the verbatim account. 79 However, first, reaching such a conclusion would mean ignoring the fact that the second and third items of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT expressly confirm that the applicant is a former executive of that group and the fact that there is nothing in the first item of evidence to suggest that the purpose of his intervention was to represent or to commit Ural Locomotives. As the applicant correctly states in his written submissions and as he stated at the hearing, that sentence was all he said, immediately after being addressed by President Putin, and the remainder of the substantive issues discussed at that meeting, which are summarised on five pages on the website of the Russian Federation, involved only other participants. 80 Second, that conclusion is not borne out by the content of President Putin’s speech, before and after the sentence spoken by the applicant. It is clearly apparent from the speech as a whole that President Putin expected all the participants present during the visit and affected by the high-speed line project, which included six regions affected by the route, to be aware of the implications associated with that project and act accordingly to bring it to completion. 81 At the beginning of his speech, President Putin asked his listeners the following: ‘Today I ask you to submit your prepared proposals on sources and mechanisms of financing, indicate the terms and stages of work, as well as conditions for attracting investors and our development institutions. I would like to emphasise once again that all these issues and possible risks must be thoroughly worked out and calculated in advance. What else would you like to say and [focus] your attention [on]?’ 82 It was only after President Putin had stated that he had discussed with the shareholders and executives of Ural Locomotives the fact that the ‘implementation of the project, the creation of all the necessary infrastructure and rolling stock[,] should be carried out precisely on our own technological base’ that he stated that those executives and shareholders were ready to implement the project and that he addressed the applicant. 83 At the end of his speech, President Putin added that the high-speed line project had to be worked out in detail with the regions through which the line would pass and that he expected in particular that the regional authorities would play an active and involved role in the forthcoming major works. 84 As the applicant notes, in essence, the content of the speech as a whole bears out the fact that he wished to reply that the region was also ready to become involved in the high-speed line project, rather than to speak as if he were one of the executives or shareholders of Group Sinara, as the Council claims. The fact that the involvement of the regions affected by the route hoped for by President Putin is apparent primarily from the part of his speech given after the applicant’s intervention does not call that finding into question. Since it is clear from the speech that the plans in question had been in existence ‘for a long time, if not a very long time’, it is likely that the applicant participated at the start of the discussions about the project, when he was still in post at Group Sinara, and that he was therefore aware that the region and the affected businesses in the region were expected to be involved in developing that project. In addition, given that in his speech President Putin twice uses the expression ‘I would like to emphasise once again’ when talking about the solutions to be found in order to implement that project, it must be assumed that President Putin reiterated more than once during his visit the need for the various participants present, including the regions affected by the route, to become involved in the project. 85 It is apparent from the foregoing, first, that the applicant acted only as a representative at that meeting, which is in line with his general function within the SOSPP, and, second, that the Council cannot correctly find that the mere fact that he was present during President Putin’s visit to the premises of Ural Locomotives, as President of the SOSPP, shows that he is a shareholder or executive of Ural Locomotives. 86 Moreover, even if the first item of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT and the applicant’s words were interpreted as constituting evidence that the applicant remained involved in Group Sinara, that item of evidence would still have needed to be supported by other evidence. It is clear that it is not. 87 That finding cannot be called into question by the second item of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT. It is clear that in that item, which merely refers in a few lines to President Putin’s visit to the premises of Ural Locomotives, the applicant is presented as being the former Chairman of the board of directors of Group Sinara. As regards the statement contained in that item of evidence that ‘the [Russian] Minister [for] Transport [Mr Vitali] Savelyev expects a prototype from [Mr Pumpyanskiy] by 2026’, it must be noted that that statement is not in any way borne out by the transcription of the speech that Mr Savelyev gave during President Putin’s visit, contained in the first item of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT, which comes from the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. It is apparent from that speech that Mr Savelyev stated that ‘in order to start operating the [high speed line], 28 trains are needed by 2028. To do this, in 2026 it is necessary to create a prototype of the train and start certification tests. We envisage the creation of a fully domestic train based on the production capacities of leading Russian transport engineering companies – Sinara Group, where we are located, and Transmashholding.’ Contrary to the impression given by the information reported in the second item of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT, there is nothing to suggest that the Russian Minister for Transport indicated that he was expecting a train prototype from the applicant. 88 It must therefore be found that the Council has not provided any conclusive evidence relating to the applicant in file WK 9906/2024 INIT or in the present action that serves to explain why he still had to be regarded as a ‘leading businessperson’ or a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion on the basis of his former positions referred to in paragraph 64 above or of the alleged links he continues to maintain with Group Sinara. 89 In the second place, the Council reiterates its position that, in essence, the fact that the applicant participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 and in the March 2023 congress, that he was awarded the ‘Order of Merit for the Fatherland’, IV degree, the Order of Honour, and that he is a member of the RSPP and of the SOSPP supports his status as a ‘leading businessperson’ or a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. 90 It is sufficient to note that the Court has already found, in essence, that the Council had entirely failed to explain how, notwithstanding that the applicant had resigned from his positions on the boards of directors of TMK and Sinara, he could be considered, on the basis of the set of circumstances referred to above, still to be a ‘leading businessperson’ or a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion (see paragraph 58 above). 91 In that regard, it needs to be added that the Court does not find the foregoing evidence to be inherently irrelevant, in particular because the events were too far in the past, for the purposes of determining whether or not the applicant remains a leading businessperson. Nevertheless, although those circumstances were capable of corroborating the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson that arose primarily from the positions he occupied on the boards of directors of TMK and Sinara, they are not sufficient, by themselves, for it to be found that the conditions of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion have been met since the applicant left those positions. 92 In any event, contrary to what the Council is, in essence, claiming, the fact that he was present during a visit by President Vladimir Putin to the Ural Locomotives electric train assembly complex and at an evening event held to celebrate the ninetieth anniversary of the Sverdlovsk region, by virtue of his positions within the SOSPP or because he is supposedly a billionaire who held positions within Group Sinara, does not permit the inference that the applicant satisfies the conditions laid down by the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion, as defined in paragraphs 44 to 47 above. 93 In the third place, the Council claims that the applicant remains very much involved in big business via DRV Invest JSC. 94 In that regard, while it is not necessary to rule on whether the applicant sold that company before his name was re-included on the lists at issue by means of the contested acts, it is sufficient to note that the Council has not provided any evidence in the various WK files or in the present proceedings to demonstrate that that company carried on any business whatsoever or that it invested in Russian undertakings or in the Russian economy. 95 It must be noted in that respect that in relation to DRV Invest JSC, the Council relies solely on a statement of 26 September 2022 by its director, in Annex B.9 to the defence. While it is admittedly clear from that statement that the objective of DRV Invest JSC was to develop its business by managing the funds that the applicant had obtained from selling the shares he held in TMK and Sinara in March 2022, it is apparent that the statement refers merely to objectives, in respect of which the applicant emphasises that they were never achieved because that company did not receive the funds in question. In other words, in the absence of other evidence to support it, that statement does not serve in any way to demonstrate that, even assuming that the applicant recovered the funds by selling the shares he held in TMK and Sinara in March 2022, those funds were in fact paid to that company in order to develop its business. 96 In those circumstances, while it is not necessary to rule on whether, having regard to the judgment of 22 April 2021, Council v PKK (C‑46/19 P, EU:C:2021:316), and to the letter of 13 September 2024, the fact that the applicant remains very involved in Group Sinara and that he continues to control TMK supplements the reasons in the fifth set of maintaining acts, it is clear that the Council has not adduced any evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT demonstrating such involvement or such control. It must be added that, in the absence of evidence on the basis of which it can be found that the applicant is of significance in the Russian economy in the light of, inter alia, his professional status, the importance of his economic activities, the extent of his capital holdings or his functions within one or more undertakings in which he pursues his activities, the applicant cannot be classified as a ‘leading businessperson operating in Russia’ within the meaning of the first part of the amended (g) criterion, as defined in paragraphs 44 and 45 above. 97 Furthermore, nor has the Council submitted evidence capable of substantiating the finding that the applicant is a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the third part of the amended (g) criterion. It follows that, assessed as a whole, the evidence on which the Council relied for the purposes of adopting the fifth set of maintaining acts cannot be found to be a sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent body of evidence capable of substantiating the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue under the first or under the third part of the amended (g) criterion. – The sixth set of maintaining acts 98 It is appropriate to determine whether, for the purposes of adopting the sixth set of maintaining acts, the 22 publicly available items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT constituted a sufficient factual basis to support the reasons relating to the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. 99 As a preliminary point, it is necessary to reject the applicant’s claim that file WK 1649/2025 INIT, which is the evidence file that served as a basis for the adoption of the sixth set of maintaining acts and which the Council annexed to its observations on the statement of modification, should be rejected as inadmissible for the purposes of examining the legality of the sixth set of maintaining acts. It is sufficient to note in that respect that, when a statement of modification has been lodged, material produced as annexes to the observations on that statement does not constitute new evidence for the purposes of Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure that should have been forwarded at an earlier stage of the proceedings. 100 According to the Council, it is apparent from that evidence that the applicant remains a leading businessperson by virtue of, inter alia, his professional status within the RSPP and the SOSPP and his activities on behalf of Group Sinara. In addition, the Counsel submits, in essence, that the fact of having owned DRV Invest JSC is evidence that the applicant continues to meet the amended (g) criterion. 101 In the first place, it should be noted that since file WK 1649/2025 INIT contains no evidence relating to the RSPP or to DRV Invest JSC, reference should be made to the considerations in paragraphs 55, 94 and 95 above, which apply mutatis mutandis. 102 In the second place, the Council claims, in essence, that the seventh to tenth and the thirteenth and fourteenth items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT describe the role of the SOSPP and of its president – in the event, the applicant – and serve to demonstrate that he remains a ‘leading businessperson’ within the meaning of the first part of the amended (g) criterion. 103 In that regard, it should be noted that, as the applicant correctly states in his written submissions and as he stated at the hearing, that evidence does not shed any new light compared with the evidence submitted previously and does not in any way allow an inference that the applicant can be classified as a ‘leading businessperson’ or as a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion, as defined in paragraphs 44 to 47 above. 104 As regards the role of the SOSPP and of its president, it is clear from the statutes of the SOSPP, contained in the seventh item of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, and from the eleventh to fourteenth items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, which relate to meetings or discussions held by the SOSPP, that its objectives include, first, implementing programmes of activities in the fields of social and employment relations and related economic relations, vocational learning and the protection of employee health at work; second, representing the interests and protecting the legal rights of its members in relations with trade unions and trade union associations; third, setting up a social partnership with educational and scientific establishments; fourth, creating a favourable climate for successful business development and for reputation enhancement and increasing business competitiveness; and, fifth, carrying out an independent review of draft legislation and of the management decisions of the regional administrative authorities in relation to economic development, industry and entrepreneurship, to scientific and technical, tax, financial and credit policies and to plans and programmes for the socio-economic development of the region, sectors of the national economy and scientific and technical projects. It is also apparent from the Statutes that the governing bodies of the SOSPP are the General Meeting (conference), the Council, the Presidium of the Council and the President (Chapter 7 of the Statutes). The President of the SOSPP, as is apparent from Chapter 11 of the Statutes, is the only executive body providing day-to-day management of the activities of the SOSPP, in accordance with federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, with the Statutes and with decisions of the General Meeting and of the Council and the Presidium of the Council. 105 Contrary to the Council’s claims, it is not apparent from either the objectives of the SOSPP or the functions of its president – in the event, the applicant – that the latter is a businessperson within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. It is clear, in the light of the evidence submitted, that the SOSPP is a body that does not pursue an economic activity and that has a sphere of activity limited to one region. That finding is also borne out, first, by the tenth and thirteenth items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, which refer to speeches on general topics made by the applicant as president of the SOSPP and, second, by the first item of evidence in file WK 9906/2024 INIT, from which it is apparent that during President Putin’s visit to the premises of Ural Locomotives the applicant acted only as a representative, in line with his general function within the SOSPP (see paragraph 85 above). 106 It must be added that, contrary to what the Council’s arguments might suggest, even if meetings, seminars or discussions within the SOSPP related to the field of defence, as is apparent from the eighth and ninth items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, that fact does not demonstrate that the reasons in the sixth set of maintaining acts are well founded. Even supposing that those discussions or meetings took place and that they were followed by effects reinforcing Russian defence capabilities, it should be recalled that the applicant’s name was maintained on the lists at issue by the sixth set of maintaining acts on the basis of the amended (g) criterion, relating to leading businesspersons, not by virtue of any support for actions or policies which undermined or threatened the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. 107 In the third place, the Council submits that the first to sixth and seventeenth items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT demonstrate that the applicant still has a very important role, at least within Group Sinara, and that he therefore continues to meet the amended (g) criterion. 108 In respect of the seventeenth item of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, which is an article referring to the applicant’s presence during a visit by the Russian Prime Minister to the Innoprom industrial exhibition held in Ekaterinburg (Russia), the Council states, in essence, that it shows that the applicant performed lobbying activities on behalf of Group Sinara and that that group remains his. First of all, the applicant attempted to compete with an industrialist for the Prime Minister’s attention in connection with that visit; next, the Prime Minister was shown the cab of Group Sinara’s future tram; and, last, the Prime Minister reminded the applicant of his promise to contribute to funding construction of new educational buildings. 109 However, contrary to the Council’s claims, it cannot be inferred from the seventeenth item of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT that the applicant lobbied on behalf of Group Sinara, that the group is still his or that he has retained control of it. First, it must be noted that the article in question expressly states, (i) that the applicant was present during the Prime Minister’s visit as Chair of the Supervisory Board of the Ural Federal University and (ii) that he was the former beneficial owner of Group Sinara, rather than that he was acting on behalf of that group. Second, as regards the claim that the applicant competed with an industrialist for the Prime Minister’s attention, it is clear that the claim is contradicted in the article in question by a source close to Group Sinara who stated that in reality there was no rivalry between the applicant and the industrialist concerned. Third, there is another contradiction in that article, which claims, on the one hand, that the applicant tried to prevent that industrialist from being present during the visit in question but, on the other, states that the reason for his absence is unknown. Fourth, as regards the fact that the Prime Minister was shown the cab of Group Sinara’s future tram, nothing in the article indicates that this was done by the applicant, or that the applicant was even present. It states only that the applicant was present during the visit and that he had been included in the programme as Chair of the Supervisory Board of the Ural Federal University. The article goes on to state that ‘a few minutes later’ the Prime Minister was shown the Sinara tram and that he reminded the applicant of his promise to contribute to funding construction of new educational buildings at the Ural Federal University. 110 In the light of the content of the seventeenth item of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, it cannot therefore reasonably be argued that it contains evidence that the applicant continues to have an important role within Group Sinara and that he meets the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion. 111 As the applicant correctly notes in his written submissions and as he noted at the hearing, the same is also true of the twenty-second item of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, consisting of an article published on the Belarusian ‘Tochka’ portal. It is sufficient to observe that there is a contradiction between that item of evidence, which presents the applicant as being the main owner of Group Sinara, and the seventeenth item of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, from which it is apparent that the applicant is the former beneficial owner of that group. 112 The same applies in respect of the first to sixth items of evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT, relating to the Sinara Art Gallery, which it is claimed is owned by the applicant in his personal capacity and is partly sponsored by a company in Group Sinara. 113 It should be noted that that evidence merely states, first, that the applicant converted a historic building in the centre of Ekaterinburg in order to create the Sinara Art Gallery, which over a number of years will present various exhibitions as part of the ‘Intersections’ project; second, that the applicant was present at the art gallery of the Yeltsin Centre in Ekaterinburg for the opening of an exhibition devoted to the contemporary art collection of one of the largest collectors of the art of our period; and, third, that the Sinara Art Gallery is partly sponsored by Gazenergobank, a company belonging to Group Sinara. 114 In that regard, suffice it to note that, whether or not a connection can be made between the fact of being the owner of the Sinara Art Gallery and the reasons in the sixth set of maintaining acts, the mere fact that the applicant owns that gallery in his personal capacity, which he disputes although without adducing evidence to support the argument, and the fact that the gallery is sponsored by a company in Group Sinara do not serve in any way to demonstrate that the applicant still has an important role within Group Sinara, or that he retains a link with that group and can still influence it, as the Council claims. 115 It is apparent from the foregoing that, while it is not necessary to rule on whether, having regard to the judgment of 22 April 2021, Council v PKK (C‑46/19 P, EU:C:2021:316), and to the letter of 17 March 2025, the fact that the applicant continues to have close contact, at least with Group Sinara, forms part of the reasons in the sixth set of maintaining acts, it is clear that the Council has not adduced any evidence in file WK 1649/2025 INIT to demonstrate any such contact. It must be added that, in the absence of evidence on the basis of which it can be found that the applicant is of significance in the Russian economy in the light of, inter alia, his professional status, the importance of his economic activities, the extent of his capital holdings or his functions within one or more undertakings in which he pursues those activities, the applicant cannot be classified as a ‘leading businessperson operating in Russia’ within the meaning of the first part of the amended (g) criterion, as defined in paragraphs 44 and 45 above. 116 Furthermore, since no evidence has been submitted that is capable of substantiating, or even suggesting, that the applicant is a ‘leading businessperson’ or a ‘businessperson’ within the meaning of the first and third parts of the amended (g) criterion, it must be held that, assessed as a whole, the evidence on which the Council relied for the purposes of adopting the sixth set of maintaining acts cannot be regarded as a sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent body of evidence capable of substantiating the reasons for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue under that criterion. Application of the (f) criterion to the applicant 117 At the outset, it should be noted that the factual basis of the reason pursuant to the (f) criterion relied on in respect of the applicant in the contested acts relates, as in the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts, solely to his former positions on the boards of directors of TMK and of Sinara. 118 The applicant disputes that the (f) criterion can be applied to him, on the ground, in essence, that the Council concedes that his alleged activity ‘supporting, materially or financially’ the Russian Government constitutes at most a past activity. 119 The Council does not submit any argument in the defence or in the rejoinder to dispute that line of argument. 120 In that regard, it must be found that, since the reasons in the contested acts which relate to the (f) criterion make reference only to the applicant’s former positions on the boards of directors of TMK and of Sinara, the Council made an error of assessment in finding that, on the date on which those acts were adopted, the applicant could be classified as a natural person supporting, materially or financially, the Russian Government. The Council cannot regard the mere fact that, more than a year before the contested acts were adopted, the applicant held the positions of Chairman of the board of directors of TMK and of President and member of the board of directors of Sinara as being sufficient to justify maintaining his name on the lists at issue as a person providing material or financial support to the Russian Government (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgments of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council, T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418, paragraphs 115 and 138, and of 2 April 2025, Pumpyanskiy v Council, T‑272/24, not published, EU:T:2025:351, paragraph 76). 121 It must be concluded that, in respect of the contested acts, the Council could not rely on the applicant’s former positions in order to demonstrate that the conditions of the (f) criterion were satisfied. 122 The second plea in law, relating to an error of assessment, must therefore be upheld and the contested acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, without it being necessary to rule on the other arguments or the other pleas in law put forward by the applicant in relation to them or on the first head of claim. Costs 123 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. 124 In the present case, since the Council has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 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) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024 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) 2025/528 of 14 March 2025 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) 2025/527 of 14 March 2025 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 the name of Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply; 2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Pumpyanskiy. Mastroianni Brkan Tóth Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 September 2025. V. Di Bucci R. Mastroianni Registrar President * Language of the case: English.