Order — ECLI:EU:T:2025:759
Date: 2025-07-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded

Action brought on 8 May 2025 – Tokareva v Council (Case T-295/25) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Maya Tokareva (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart, J. Goffin and F. Patuelli, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul 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, in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list annexed to that decision; and annul 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 it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to the regulation; order the Council to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging error of assessment. Since the points of fact and law on which the contested acts are based are identical to those which served as the basis for the maintaining acts which preceded them and which were annulled by the Court on two occasions (Cases T-269/24 and T-744/22), the Court’s findings in that latter case may be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the contested acts. Consequently, those acts result from the same error of assessment by the Council which justified the annulment of the preceding acts by the judgment of the Court in Cases T-269/24 and T-744/22. Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court in Case T-269/24 and infringement of the principle of good administration. The applicant argues that the Council failed to comply with the judgments of the Court in Cases T-269/24 and T-744/22, which had annulled the preceding maintaining acts. Instead, the Council reintroduced identical maintaining acts without providing any new or updated reason or evidence as compared with those subject to the proceedings in Cases T-269/24 and T-744/22. Despite the applicant’s formal notice of 27 March 2025, the Council continues to refuse to correct the errors found by the Court. The applicant submits that the failure to comply with the judgment of 26 February 2025 constitutes a wrongful act demonstrating an abuse of powers committed repeatedly by the Council since 11 September 2024, the date of the judgment annulling the preceding acts in Case T-744/22. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant criticises the Council for infringing the principle of proportionality by adopting restrictive measures which are neither appropriate nor necessary. She states that the Council demonstrates, by its attitude and the refusal to give due effect to the judgments of the Court concerning her, that it intends to maintain unjustified restrictive measures against the applicant indefinitely, thus infringing the principle of proportionality. Moreover, those measures have no practical effect on the Russian authorities or the objectives of Decision 2014/145/CFSP since the applicant has no connection with the conflict in Ukraine. Fourth plea in law, alleging undue interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights. The restrictive measures adopted against the applicant undermine her fundamental rights. As a result of the contested acts, she is at risk of permanently losing her Cypriot nationality. The contested acts prevent the applicant from being present on her property in Croatia and freeze her assets, thus infringing her right to property. The contested acts prevent the applicant from having her name removed from the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures despite the two judgments of the Court annulling the preceding maintaining acts, which undermines her right to effective judicial protection. ____________