Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:860
Date: 2025-10-29
Language of the case: English

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 6 May 2026 (*) ( Appeal – Intervention – Second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Interest in the result of the case – None – Rejection ) In Case C‑270/25 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 8 April 2025, Andrey Melnichenko, residing in St. Moritz (Switzerland), represented by H. Bajer-Pellet, A. Beauchemin, A. Miron, D. Müller, avocats, C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel, and by Y. Shumilov, Solicitor, applicant, supported by: EuroChem Group AG, established in Zug (Switzerland), represented by N. Montag, avocate, intervener in the appeal, the other parties to the proceedings being: Council of the European Union, represented initially by B. Driessen, P. Mahnič and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents, and subsequently by B. Driessen and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents, defendant at first instance, European Commission, represented by M. Carpus-Carcea and L. Puccio, acting as Agents, intervener at first instance, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT, having regard to the proposal of M.L. Arastey Sahún, Judge-Rapporteur, after hearing the Advocate General, A. Biondi, makes the following Order 1 By his appeal, Mr Andrey Melnichenko seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2025, Melnichenko v Council (T‑271/22, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2025:47), by which it dismissed his action seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 31) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 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 (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 1); second, of 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 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149) and of 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 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1); and, third, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1), in so far as those acts (together, ‘the acts at issue’) include and maintain Mr Melnichenko’s name on the lists annexed to those acts. 2 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 14 July 2025, Linetrust PTC LTD (‘Linetrust’) applied, on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, for leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by Mr Melnichenko. 3 By order of 29 October 2025, Melnichenko v Council (C‑270/25 P, ‘the contested order’, EU:C:2025:859), the President of the Court of Justice dismissed that application. 4 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 16 January 2026, Linetrust made, pursuant to Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 159(1) of the Rules of Procedure, an ‘application for revision’ of the contested order on account of the discovery of a new fact which occurred after the lodging of its application to intervene and the adoption of that order. According to Linetrust, that new fact, which was unknown to the Court and to Linetrust prior to the service of that order, is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor for the position of the President of the Court regarding the question whether Linetrust was directly affected by the acts at issue and had a direct and existing interest in the setting aside of the judgment under appeal. Consequently, Linetrust seeks, first, to have point 1 of the operative part of the contested order set aside and, second, to be granted leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by Mr Melnichenko. 5 That fact consists of notice being given, on 29 October 2025, by the Dioikitiko Dikastirio (Administrative Court, Cyprus) concerning a hearing scheduled to take place on 10 December 2025 in an appeal against a decision of the competent Cypriot sanctions authority dated 8 February 2023; Linetrust was made aware of that notice only on 12 November 2025. Linetrust also refers to a letter from the Cypriot National Sanctions Implementation Unit of 30 September 2025, which it claims adversely affects it and which, in its view, is directly based on the acts at issue. 6 Furthermore, Linetrust adds that another letter from the Cypriot National Sanctions Implementation Unit, dated 31 October 2025, concerning the situation of AIM Capital LTD, one of its subsidiaries, confirms the detrimental effect of the restrictive measures at issue on its own situation. 7 By decision of 10 February 2026, the President of the Court added to the file of the present case the document of 16 January 2026 and the documents referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the present order, and invited the other parties to the proceedings to submit, should they wish to do so, their observations on those documents. 8 In its observations filed on 12 February 2026, the Council of the European Union argued that the notice from the Dioikitiko Dikastirio (Administrative Court) of 29 October 2025 contained no reference to the parties concerned or to the case to which it relates. It added that the other documents produced by Linetrust were also not such as to justify revision of the contested order or to admit Linetrust as an intervener in the present case. 9 By his observations lodged on 24 February 2026, Mr Melnichenko stated that Linetrust’s application to intervene should be allowed. 10 In its observations filed on 24 February 2026, the European Commission argued that the application for revision of the contested order is manifestly inadmissible, given that it is based on submissions pertaining to decisions of the Cypriot authorities, while, by that order, the President of the Court had ruled on submissions presented by Linetrust in connection with the judgment under appeal, and not on the conduct of those Cypriot authorities. The Commission added that, even if that application could be regarded as a new application to intervene, within the meaning of Article 129(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the documents produced in its support do not establish that the national proceedings at issue concern Linetrust and do not demonstrate that Linetrust has a direct and existing interest in the setting aside of the judgment under appeal. The application for revision 11 Under Article 159(1) of the Rules of Procedure, an application for revision of a decision of the Court may be made, in accordance with Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, only on discovery of a fact which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor and which, when the judgment was delivered or the order served, was unknown to the Court and to the party claiming the revision. 12 In that connection, while Article 159(1) of the Rules of Procedure mentions – with regard to decisions whose revision may be sought – both ‘judgments’ and ‘orders’, Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to which the former article refers, concerns only the revision of ‘judgments’. 13 It is true, moreover, that Article 131 of the Rules of Procedure treats applications to intervene differently depending on the basis on which they are submitted. Thus, where the application is made pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of that statute, Article 131(3) provides that the President is to decide on that application by order. By contrast, where it is submitted pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute, Article 131(4) provides that the intervention is, in principle, to be allowed by decision of the President. 14 It follows from those provisions that the order by which the President rules, pursuant to Article 131(3) of the Rules of Procedure, on an application to intervene resolves a procedural question concerning the course of the proceedings but does not bring those proceedings to an end. Such an order cannot, therefore, be regarded as covered by the concept of ‘order’, within the meaning of Article 159(1) of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and, consequently, cannot be the subject of an application for revision. 15 In those circumstances, the application for revision submitted by Linetrust must be rejected and it should be regarded as a new application to intervene, submitted on the basis of Article 129(4) of the Rules of Procedure. The application to intervene 16 Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court, other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between those States, of the one part, and such institutions, of the other part, may intervene in that case. 17 According to settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct and existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought, and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward as such. The words ‘result of a case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment (orders of the President of the Court of 17 June 1997, National Power and PowerGen v Commission, C‑151/97 P(I) and C‑157/97 P(I), EU:C:1997:307, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited, and of 29 October 2025, Melnichenko v Council, C‑270/25 P, EU:C:2025:859, paragraph 6 and the case-law cited). 18 In that regard, it must, in particular, be ascertained whether the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and whether its interest in the result of the case is established. In principle, an economic operator’s interest in the result of the case can be regarded as sufficiently direct only to the extent that that result is such as to alter the legal position of that operator (order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2025, Melnichenko v Council, C‑270/25 P, EU:C:2025:859, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited). 19 In the present case, it must be borne in mind that, in paragraph 10 of the contested order, it was found that neither Linetrust nor Firstline Trust, of which it is the trustee, are mentioned in the statement of reasons underlying the freezing of Mr Melnichenko’s funds and economic resources in each of the acts at issue. Furthermore, the funds and economic resources of Linetrust and Firstline Trust were not frozen by the acts at issue or by other EU acts, unlike those of Mr Melnichenko. 20 As is apparent from paragraph 11 of that order, the General Court did not carry out, in the judgment under appeal, any legal assessment of Linetrust, in particular its role, status, way of operating, reputation, functions and legal obligations, conduct, legal standing, legitimacy, institutional credibility or prerogatives. 21 The documents submitted by Linetrust in support of the present application to intervene, which relate solely to acts and decisions of the Cypriot authorities and do not concern the acts at issue or any assessment of Linetrust carried out by the General Court in the judgment under appeal are not such as to demonstrate a direct and existing interest in the setting aside of that judgment and the annulment of the acts at issue, as requested in the present case by Mr Melnichenko in the form of order he seeks in his appeal. 22 It follows from all of the foregoing that Linetrust does not have a direct and existing interest in the result of the present case and that, consequently, its application to intervene must be dismissed. Costs 23 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 24 Since Linetrust has been unsuccessful in its application to intervene and the Council has not applied for costs, Linetrust and the Council are to be ordered to each bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene. 25 By contrast, since the Commission has applied for Linetrust to pay the costs, the latter shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission. On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders: 1. Linetrust PTC LTD’s application to intervene is dismissed. 2. Linetrust PTC LTD shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission. 3. The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 6 May 2026. A. Calot Escobar K. Lenaerts Registrar President * Language of the case: English.