Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2024:417
Date: 2024-06-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
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 5 November 2014, Mayaleh v Council, T‑307/12 and T‑408/13, EU:T:2014:926, paragraph 128). 32 It is for the Council to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (see, to that effect, 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 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 66). 33 It is in the light of those case-law principles that the Court must determine whether the Council was correct in law to find that the applicant was associated with her spouse, who was himself the subject of restrictive measures. 34 In the present case, it should be observed that the Council decided to include the applicant’s name again on the lists at issue on one sole ground, namely her connection with Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, who is her spouse. 35 In that regard, it must be noted that, first, Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy’s name was included on the lists at issue by Decision 2022/397 and Implementing Regulation 2022/396, and that that inclusion was since maintained by Decisions 2022/1530 and 2023/572 and Implementing Regulations 2022/1529 and 2023/571. Secondly, the justification given for that relisting was, in particular, as stated in paragraph 7 above, that being a leading businessperson is one of the criteria for inclusion on the lists at issue. 36 However, the judgment delivered today in Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published) finds that the Council made an error of assessment in finding that Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy is still a leading businessperson within the meaning of criterion (g) and annuls Decisions 2022/1530 and 2023/572 and Implementing Regulations 2022/1529 and 2023/571 in so far as those acts concern him. 37 Consequently, without it being necessary either to assess the evidence adduced by the Council or to analyse whether the applicant is in fact connected with Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, it must be held that the Council made an error of assessment in including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue as regards both the first and the second set of maintaining acts, since the merits of that inclusion rest on her connection with a person wrongly classified as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine, pursuant to Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329. 38 In the light of the foregoing, the second plea in law must be upheld and the contested acts annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, without it being necessary to examine the other pleas for annulment raised in support of the action or the first head of claim. Costs 39 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 40 In the present case, since the Council has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of 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) 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, and 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, in so far as the name of Ms Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya 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 Ms Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya. Spielmann Mastroianni Tóth Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 June 2024. V. Di Bucci M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.