Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:839
Date: 2024-11-20
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Action brought on 15 September 2023 – Uss v Council (Case T-571/23) Language of the case: Dutch Parties Applicant: Artem Alexandrovich Uss (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: R. Moeyersons, lawyer) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1218 1 of 23 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, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1216 2 of 23 June 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 those acts concern the applicant; order the Council to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The statement of reasons for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list is factually incorrect and/or irrelevant for the following reasons: The applicant is not a leading businessperson operating in Russia. His stake in Sibougol LLC, whose production amounts to only 0.66% of Russian coal production, is only 38.8% and the applicant has no stake in Krasnoyarsklesomaterialy. The Council has failed to prove that the applicant is a businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation. Nor does the Council prove that the coal industry provides significant revenues. The applicant does not benefit from the Government of the Russian Federation. The Council has not shown that the applicant’s companies have been awarded government contracts on the basis of his father’s position. Moreover, restrictive measures cannot be imposed based on the conduct of family members. The applicant has not provided Russia with military and dual-use technology through the company Nord-Deutsche Industrieanlagenbau. The Council has provided no evidence for this at all and has been contradicted by the Italian court. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 ECHR The adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant is in response to his escape from extradition to the United States while under house arrest in Italy and is therefore a peace offering to the United States and an act of revenge. It is not related to the adoption of sanctions or restrictive measures by the European Union against the Russian Federation. The possibility of restricting the applicant’s rights has therefore been misused by the Council. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 ECHR and Article 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union The adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant is in response to his escape from extradition to the United States while under house arrest in Italy and is therefore a peace offering to the United States and an act of revenge. It is not related to the adoption of sanctions or restrictive measures by the European Union against the Russian Federation. By limiting the applicant’s rights, the Council therefore misused its power. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in accordance with Article 5(4) TEU The Council does not demonstrate in any way that the sanctions on the applicant are appropriate and necessary to achieve the ultimate objective and do not impose on him burdens that are excessive in relation to that objective. Fifth plea in law, based on the Council’s conduct and the merits of the action Having regard to its conduct, the Council should be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with Article 135(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The Council should also be ordered to pay the costs as the action is well founded. ____________ 1 OJ 2023 L 159 I, p. 526. 1 OJ 2023 L 159 I, p. 335.