62023TJ0573_RES
Case T‑573/23
Positive Group PAO
v
Council of the European Union
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025
(Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Definition of ‘entities operating in the Russian IT sector with a license administered by the FSB’ – Article 2(1)(i) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Plea of illegality – Error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence)
Judicial proceedings – Intervention – Statement in intervention – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Admissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 145(2)(b))
(see paragraphs 32-36)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Compliance with the principle of legal certainty requiring clarity, precision and foreseeability of the effects of legal rules
(Art. 21(2)(c) TEU; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 44-49, 52, 65, 75, 76)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds of legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Restrictive measures not adopted by the Council against other persons, entities or bodies in an identical situation – Discretion enjoyed by the Council in the light of the objectives of the legislation
(Art. 21(2)(c) TEU; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 50, 51)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Concept of ‘license administered by the FSB’
(Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 57-64, 74, 126, 127, 140, 141, 231, 255, 256, 266)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Concept of ‘entity’ – Parent company and its subsidiaries – Included – Conditions – Decisive influence of the parent company over the subsidiaries
(Art. 21(2)(c) TEU; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 78-86, 184, 185, 253, 254, 257)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Relationship between the Russian IT sector and the Russian security services – Requirement of a direct link with information warfare – None – Appropriateness of the restrictive measures – Restrictive measures pursuing a legitimate aim of the common foreign and security policy – Observance of the principle of proportionality
(Arts 3(1), 5 and 21(2)(c) TEU; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 90-106, 110, 115, 118-121, 128-133, 143)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Scope of the review – Restricted review for general rules – Review extending to assessment of the facts and verification of the evidence for measures applying to specific entities – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Relationship between the Russian IT sector and the Russian security services – Not possible for the Council to provide precise evidence of or objective information on activities that are, by nature, secret – Council’s margin of discretion
(Art. 275, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 111-113, 116, 117)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Prohibition on entry and transit and freezing of funds of certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Ukraine – Restriction on the freedom to conduct a business – Whether permissible – Conditions – Restriction laid down by law – Respect for the essence of the right invoked – Pursuit of an objective of general interest recognised as such by the European Union – Observance of the principle of proportionality – Conditions met
(Arts 3(5) and 21 TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 16 and 52(1); Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 146-155)
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds of certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Ukraine – Obligation to identify in the statement of reasons the specific and concrete elements justifying the said measure – Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him or her to understand the scope of the measure taken against him or her – Whether summary statement of reasons sufficient
(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767 and (CFSP) 2024/847; Council Regulations No 269/2014, 2023/1216, 2023/1765 and 2024/849)
(see paragraphs 159-171)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Inclusion on the lists based on a specific, precise and consistent body of evidence – Error of assessment – None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 174-176, 191-199, 204, 210, 211, 217, 223-226, 236-243, 248-250, 259, 265, 269-277)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Scope of the review – Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list annexed to the contested decision on account of its capacity as a legal person, entity or body operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Publicly available documents – Principle of the unfettered assessment of the evidence – Inculpatory and exculpatory evidence communicated
(Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456; Council Regulations No 269/2014, 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 178, 179, 208, 209)
EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds of legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Measure of general application – Obligation of prior disclosure, to the applicant, of evidence justifying the adoption, by the Council, of a new criterion – None
(Art. 29 TEU; Art. 215 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a);Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1218, (CFSP) 2023/1767, (CFSP) 2024/847 and (CFSP) 2024/2456, Art. 2(1)(i); Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 3(1)(i), 2023/1216, 2023/1765, 2024/849 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 289, 290)
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds of legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license – Rights of the defence – Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures – Disclosure to the person concerned of new evidence taken into account during the periodic review of the restrictive measures – Infringement of the right to be heard – None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2023/1767 and (CFSP) 2024/2456 Art. 6, third para.; Council Regulations No 269/2014, Art. 14(4), 2023/1765 and 2024/2455)
(see paragraphs 294, 295, 301, 318)
EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to be heard – Obligation for the Council to reply to observations submitted by the persons or entities concerned before the adoption of the restrictive measures envisaged – None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2))
(see paragraphs 308, 312)
Résumé
In its judgment, the General Court dismisses the action for annulment brought by the company Positive Group PAO against the acts by which its name was included by the Council of the European Union on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. This case affords the Court the opportunity, in particular, to rule for the first time on the lawfulness of criterion (i) of Decision 2014/145 (
1
) which permits the Council to take restrictive measures against legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT sector with a license from the FSB.
This judgment arises in the context of a series of restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in response to the military aggression perpetrated by the Russian Federation against Ukraine on 24 February 2022. The funds and economic resources of Positive Group PAO were frozen within the European Union in June and September 2023, (
2
) then in March and September 2024, (
3
) on the ground that it is an entity operating in the Russian IT sector and holds a license administered by the FSB. In September 2024, the Council amended the grounds for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue by stating that the latter is the holding company of a conglomerate established in Russia which includes AO Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz, which operates in the Russian IT sector and holds a license administered by the FSB.
In support of its action for annulment, the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of criterion (i) and also relies, in particular, on errors of assessment on the part of the Council.
Findings of the Court
As regards the plea of illegality in respect of criterion (i), the Court rules, in the first place, that that criterion is consistent with the principles of foreseeability and legal certainty since it is sufficiently clear and foreseeable, and that the Council’s discretion is circumscribed by the objectives pursued by the legislation governing the restrictive measures at issue. The Court observes, in that regard, that the conditions for the application of criterion (i) objectively establish a defined category of persons. The application of that criterion in fact presupposes that two objective criteria are satisfied, namely that, on the one hand, the legal person, entity or body concerned operates in the Russian IT sector and, on the other hand, it holds a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license. Furthermore, criterion (i) forms part of a legal framework that is circumscribed by the objectives pursued by the restrictive measures at issue, namely the need to exert maximum pressure on the Russian authorities so that they bring an end to their actions destabilising Ukraine and to the military aggression against that country. Those restrictive measures are therefore consistent with the objective referred to in Article 21(2)(c) TEU.
The Court states that, in the scenario where a parent company owns or controls one of its subsidiaries in such a way that it exerts decisive influence over that subsidiary, they form a single ‘entity’ for the purposes of criterion (i). Thus, the conditions for listing the entity formed by the parent company and its subsidiary under criterion (i) will be met where the subsidiary operates in the Russian IT sector and holds a license from the FSB.
In the second place, the Court finds that criterion (i) is not manifestly disproportionate in the light of the objectives pursued by the restrictive measures. That criterion is such as to limit the means available to the Government of the Russian Federation in order to conduct information warfare, since, by having ties to the Russian security services, those legal persons, entities or bodies contribute, directly or indirectly, to the capacity of the Russian Federation to pursue its actions and policies undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. That criterion is thus necessary to the aim of increasing the pressure on the Russian authorities, so that they put an end to their actions and policies destabilising Ukraine, as these are pursued in particular through information warfare. The Court specifies that criterion (i) undermines the capacity of such entities to provide their support to the Russian security services and that it is not manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objectives referred to above and cannot, therefore, be regarded as disproportionate inasmuch as it does not require that the Council establish actual participation in information warfare on the part of the entity concerned. The Court considers, in that connection, that the requirement laid down by criterion (i) relating to holding a license from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license, in so far as it serves to cover not only entities in the Russian IT sector which actually participate in information warfare, but also those capable of being mobilised by the Russian security services to assist those services, is appropriate and necessary to achieve the objective pursued by that criterion.
In the third place, the Court rules that the criterion is not a disproportionate interference in the freedom to conduct a business. (
4
) It finds, in particular, having regard to the overriding importance of the objectives pursued by the restrictive measures, that the Council was able to find, without overstepping the bounds of its discretion, that the interference in the freedom to conduct a business that would result from the application of criterion (i) was appropriate and necessary for the purposes of increasing pressure on the Russian Federation. Since those measures do not prevent Russian IT undertakings from conducting their business activities, such interference cannot be considered, in relation to the objectives pursued, to be a disproportionate and intolerable interference that would impair the very substance of the freedom to conduct a business of the entities falling within the scope of that criterion.
As regards the errors of assessment on which the applicant relies, the Court states that the person designated in the initial acts and the first set of maintaining acts – from which it must be established that that person satisfies the conditions laid down by criterion (i) – is the applicant as an entity, also known as Positive Technologies or Gruppa Pozitiva, and not the applicant as a company or a legal person. Furthermore, even though Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz is a legal person that is legally separate from the applicant, the Council could validly take the view that, having regard to the fact that the applicant owns 100% of that subsidiary, it exercised decisive influence over that subsidiary, and that the latter was not an entity independent from the applicant. Accordingly, in so far as it is established that its subsidiary, Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz, holds a license from the FSB, the conditions for listing the applicant as an entity on the basis of criterion (i) have been met. In that context, the fact that the tax identification number on the licenses from the FSB does not match that of the applicant as a legal person is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing that the applicant as an entity satisfies the conditions for inclusion under criterion (i). The Court finds that the Council did not make an error of assessment by including and maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue.
(
1
)	Article 2(1)(i) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1218 of 23 June 2023 (OJ 2023 L 159I, p. 526) (‘criterion (i)’):
‘1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by: …
(i) legal persons, entities or bodies operating in the Russian IT-sector with a license administered by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) Centre for Licensing, Certification, and Protection of State Secrets or a “weapons and military equipment” license administered by the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade …
… shall be frozen.’
(
2
)	Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1218 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 (OJ 2023 L 159I, p. 526), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1216 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 (OJ 2023 L 159I, p. 335) (‘the initial acts’); 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 (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104), and 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 (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3) (‘the first set of maintaining acts’).
(
3
)	Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/847), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 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 L, 2024/849) (‘the second set of maintaining acts’); Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/2456) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024 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 L, 2024/2455) (‘the third set of maintaining acts’).
(
4
)	Freedom enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.