Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:106
Date: 2025-01-29
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Action brought on 24 November 2023 – Vinokurov v Council (Case T-1106/23) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Alexander Semenovich Vinokurov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: É. Épron, J.‑F. Quievy and C. Gimbert, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: declare the action for annulment to be admissible and well-founded; declare Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine to be inapplicable to the applicant on grounds of unlawfulness; declare Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1098 of 5 June 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses to be inapplicable to the applicant on grounds of unlawfulness; order the annulment in part of 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, in so far as it concerns the applicant; order the annulment in part of 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 it concerns the applicant; order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings; reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law. First plea, raising a plea of illegality. Second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment. Third plea, alleging a failure to observe the principle of proportionality. Fourth plea, alleging a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty. ____________