JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
22 April 2026 (*)
( Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources or to restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Error of assessment )
In Case T‑528/24,
Viktor Arkadievich Chevtsov, residing in Budapest (Hungary), represented by N. Montag, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by M. Di Gaetano and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of M. Sampol Pucurull, President, J. Laitenberger and M. Stancu (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: I. Kurme, Administrator,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
further to the hearing on 8 December 2025,
gives the following
Judgment
1        By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Viktor Arkadievich Chevtsov, seeks annulment:
–        of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2024/2116 of 26 July 2024 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/2116) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2113 of 26 July 2024 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/2113) (together, ‘the initial acts’); and
–        of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/385 of 24 February 2025 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/385) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/386 of 24 February 2025 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/386) (together, ‘the maintaining acts’),
in so far as those acts (together, ‘the contested acts’) concern him.
Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action
2        The applicant is a Belarusian businessman.
3        The present case has been brought in the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union since 2004 in view of the situation in Belarus with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights and also, since 2022, in view of the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. As is apparent from the recitals of both the initial acts and the maintaining acts, the present case is linked specifically to the gravity of the situation in Belarus and to the involvement of the Republic of Belarus in the illegal aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which was held to be a blatant violation of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of that State.
4        On 18 May 2006, under Articles 75 and 215 TFEU, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1) and, on 15 October 2012, under Article 29 TEU, it adopted Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).
5        The criterion on the basis of which the restrictive measures against the applicant were taken is laid down in Article 3(1)(b) and Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 and in Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006, in the versions of those acts in force at the time when the contested acts were adopted.
6        Article 3(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 provides for a prohibition on the entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union by persons benefiting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko.
7        Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006 – which latter provision refers to the former – provide for the freezing of all funds and economic resources of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies benefiting from or supporting the regime of President Lukashenko, and of legal persons, entities or bodies owned or controlled by them.
8        By the initial acts, the applicant’s name was included on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures, contained in the annex to Decision 2012/642 and in Annex I to Regulation No 765/2006 (together, ‘the lists at issue’), for the following reasons:
‘[The applicant] is a businessman operating in Belarus, with business interests in holography. He is the sole shareholder of Tekhnokhimtrade. JSC Holography Industry is co-owned by, among others, Tekhnokhimtrade and two State-owned entities.
[The applicant] is a beneficiary of a monopoly artificially created by the [Belarusian] State, as, since March 2011, JSC Holography Industry has been the only Belarusian company licensed by the Ministry of Finance of Belarus to produce security holograms and crystallograms for security forms and documents. The Council of Ministers of Belarus issued a requirement to put hologram stickers on a wide range of goods, cash registers and slot machines. Those hologram stickers are produced solely by JSC Holography Industry.
Therefore, [the applicant] is [benefiting] from the [regime of President Lukashenko].’
9        On 5 August 2024, the Council published in the Official Journal of the European Union a notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in the initial acts (OJ C, C/2024/4902). It stated that the persons concerned by that notice could, before 30 November 2024, submit a request to the Council to reconsider the decision by which their names had been included on the lists at issue.
10      By letter of 21 August 2024, the applicant requested the Council to provide him with all the documents and evidence substantiating the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue.
11      On 29 August 2024, the Council provided the applicant with evidence file WK 10693/2024 INIT.
12      On 17 September 2024, the applicant disputed whether the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue by the initial acts was well founded and requested the Council to reconsider that listing.
13      By letter of 16 January 2025, the Council informed the applicant of its intention to maintain his name on the lists at issue on the basis of a revised statement of reasons, and provided him with evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1. It also gave the applicant an opportunity to submit observations by 30 January 2025.
14      On 30 January 2025, the applicant disputed whether the maintenance of his name on the lists at issue was well founded, and asked the Council to reconsider his listing.
15      By the maintaining acts, the applicant’s name was maintained on the lists at issue until 28 February 2026, for the following reasons:
‘[The applicant] is a businessman with business interests in Belarus.
In his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, he is supporting the [regime of President Lukashenko]. Furthermore, he is [benefiting] from the regime, through his involvement in Reshenie Bank, which in turn has interests in and is involved in the Dudutki museum complex, which is [benefiting] from the Belarussian [S]tate budget.
Therefore, [the applicant] is supporting and [benefiting] from the [regime of President Lukashenko].’
16      By letter of 25 February 2025, the Council replied to the applicant’s observations referred to in paragraphs 12 and 14 above. It also informed the applicant of its decision to maintain his name on the lists at issue.
Forms of order sought
17      Following modification of the application under Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the applicant claims that the Court should:
–        annul the contested acts in so far as they concern him;
–        order the Council to pay the costs.
18      The Council claims that the Court should:
–        dismiss the action;
–        order the applicant to pay the costs;
–        in the alternative, should the Court annul the contested acts in so far as they concern the applicant, order that the effects of Decision 2025/385 be maintained as regards the applicant until the annulment in part of Implementing Regulation 2025/386 takes effect.
Law
19      In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant raises, in essence, two pleas in law, alleging, the first, an error of assessment and failure to discharge the burden of proof and, second, a breach of the principle of proportionality and of his fundamental rights. At the hearing, he raised an additional plea in law, alleging breach of his rights of defence.
The first plea in law, alleging an error of assessment and failure to discharge the burden of proof
20      By the first plea in law, the applicant criticises the Council, in essence, for making an error of assessment and for failing to discharge its burden of proof in finding that there was a sufficiently solid factual basis capable of justifying the inclusion and subsequently the maintenance of his name on the lists at issue.
21      The Council disputes that line of argument.
Preliminary observations
22      It should be borne in mind, in the first place, that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires, inter alia, that, as part of the review of the legality of the grounds which are the basis of the decision to include or to maintain the name of a person or entity on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures, the Courts of the European Union are to ensure that that decision, which affects that person or entity individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. Doing so entails a verification of the factual allegations in the statement 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, are substantiated (see, to that effect, judgment 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).
23      It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person or entity to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (see, to that effect, judgment 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).
24      If the competent EU authority provides relevant information or evidence, the Courts of the European Union must then determine whether the facts alleged are made out in the light of that information or evidence and assess the probative value of that information or evidence in the circumstances of the particular case and in the light of any observations submitted in relation to them by, among others, the person or entity concerned (see, to that effect, judgment 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 124).
25      That assessment must be carried out by examining the evidence and information not in isolation but in their context. The Council discharges its burden of proof if it presents to the Courts of the European Union a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to establish that there is a sufficient link between the entity subject to a measure freezing its funds and the regime or, in general, the situations, being combated (see judgment of 12 February 2020, Kanyama v Council, T‑167/18, not published, EU:T:2020:49, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited).
26      As regards the reliability and probative value of evidence, including that from digital sources, it should be borne in mind that the activity of the Court of Justice and of the General Court is governed by the principle of the unfettered evaluation of evidence, and that it is only the reliability of the evidence produced which is decisive for assessing its value. In addition, in order to assess the probative value of a document, regard should be had to the credibility of the account it contains, and in particular to the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on its face, the document appears to be sound and reliable (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 March 2018, Kim and Others v Council and Commission, T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 224, and of 12 February 2020, Kande Mupompa v Council, T‑170/18, EU:T:2020:60, paragraph 107 (not published)).
27      In the second place, it should be borne in mind that restrictive measures are measures of a precautionary and, by definition, provisional nature, the validity of which always depends on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to persist with them in order to achieve their objective. It is therefore for the Council, in the course of its periodic review of those restrictive measures, to conduct an updated assessment of the situation and to appraise the impact of such measures, in order to determine whether they have made it possible to attain the objectives pursued by the initial inclusion of the names of the persons and entities concerned on the list at issue or whether the same conclusion in respect of those persons and entities can still be drawn (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 February 2020, Amisi Kumba v Council, T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraphs 58 and 59, and of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited).
28      It is in the light of those considerations that the Court must determine whether the Council made an error of assessment in finding in the present case that there was a sufficiently solid factual basis capable of justifying the inclusion and subsequently the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue for the reasons relied on in relation to him.
The initial acts
29      At the outset, it should be noted that, in the initial acts, the Council found that the applicant was benefiting from the regime of President Lukashenko on the basis of his business interests in the holography sector in Belarus as a result of being the sole shareholder of the company Tekhnokhimtrade and of that company’s holding in the capital of JSC Holography Industry, which the Council claims is an undertaking engaged in that sector. Specifically, it is apparent from the reasons in those acts that JSC Holography Industry is the beneficiary of a monopoly artificially created by the Belarusian State concerning in particular the production of security holograms and crystallograms for secure forms and documents, and that it alone manufactures hologram stickers for cash registers and slot machines.
30      As regards the reasons in the initial acts, the applicant disputes, first, that he is the sole shareholder of Tekhnokhimtrade as, on 21 August 2024, he sold all his shares in that entity and withdrew completely from it. He also states that none of the evidence adduced by the Council demonstrates that, following that sale, he was still involved in certain economic sectors in Belarus, specifically the holography sector.
31      The applicant submits, second, that he has not benefited from any monopoly artificially created by the Belarusian State, even as the sole shareholder of Tekhnokhimtrade. The applicant asserts in particular that that company has been loss-making for many years and that he never received a dividend from it. In addition, he claims that the Council reached incorrect conclusions as regards whether JSC Holography Industry had a monopoly in the holography sector in Belarus. According to him, that company was not the only entity licensed to produce protection elements, including in the form of holograms and crystallograms. He adds that the Council incorrectly found that the company in question manufactured hologram stickers for cash registers and slot machines. He also disputes that the grant of a licence to that company to produce hologram stickers, on the one hand, and the adoption of new obligations in respect of the use of such stickers, on the other, were close in time. The mandatory labelling requirements were established long before the company in question obtained the licence authorising it to produce those stickers.
32      Third, the applicant disputes that he had close ties to the regime of President Lukashenko and claims that he never benefited from that regime, his success being due solely to his business acumen. In that regard, he notes that, in order to demonstrate the benefit that he derives from the regime of President Lukashenko, the Council relied only on the fact that the grant of a licence to JSC Holography Industry to produce hologram stickers, on the one hand, and the adoption of new obligations in respect of the use of such stickers, on the other, were allegedly close in time. According to the applicant, the Council has also produced only a single item of evidence, namely a press article, in which reference is made to close ties allegedly existing between him and the regime in question. As regards the claim of proximity in time, he submits that it is factually and legally flawed. In respect of the press article produced by the Council, he considers that it is politically motivated, with the effect that it cannot be regarded as objective or reliable, and that it is, in any event, not corroborated by any other evidence in the case file.
33      The applicant states, fourth, that all his ties to JSC Holography Industry and to Belarus have ceased to exist. In particular, in relation to the seven patents co-authored by him in the holography sector, by means of which, according to the Council, he supported that company’s business activities, he notes that those patents expired in 2017, that is to say, long before his name was included on the lists at issue, and that the Council therefore cannot rely on them to demonstrate his support for that company’s business activities.
34      In the reply, the applicant adds that, on 16 January 2025, he was informed of the Council’s intention to maintain the restrictive measures in relation to him on the basis of a completely revised statement of reasons. He observes that the Council entirely abandoned its earlier claims regarding an alleged State monopoly from which he implicitly benefited in the holography sector in Belarus, a circumstance which, he submits, confirms that the reasons on the basis of which the initial acts were adopted in relation to him are totally unfounded.
35      In that context, it is necessary to examine each of the elements relied on in the reasons in the initial acts to support the initial inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue.
–       The applicant’s business interests in the holography sector in Belarus
36      It must be inferred from the reasons in the initial acts, set out in paragraph 8 above, that the Council found that, on the date on which those acts were adopted, the applicant had business interests in the holography sector in Belarus as a result, first, of his status as the sole shareholder of Tekhnokhimtrade and, second, of that entity’s holding in the capital of JSC Holography Industry, which, according to the Council, is an undertaking engaged in that sector.
37      As regards, first, the applicant’s status as the sole shareholder of Tekhnokhimtrade, the Court notes that, in support of that finding, the Council has produced, inter alia, as item of evidence 1 in evidence file WK 10693/2024 INIT, an extract, dated 7 June 2024, from the Belarusian unified national register of legal persons and sole traders, showing that, at the time of adoption of the initial acts, the applicant had held all the shares in that company since it was created on 10 November 1991.
38      In respect of, second, Tekhnokhimtrade’s holding in the capital of JSC Holography Industry, claimed to be a company engaged in the holography sector in Belarus, it should be noted first of all that, as item of evidence 2 in evidence file WK 10693/2024 INIT, the Council provided an extract, dated 21 June 2024, from the website of JSC Holography Industry showing that, on the date on which the initial acts were adopted, Tekhnokhimtrade, in common with a number of other entities and individuals, was one of the shareholders of JSC Holography Industry.
39      As regards the nature of the activities carried on by JSC Holography Industry, it is necessary, next, to note that, as items of evidence 5 and 6 in evidence file WK 10693/2024 INIT, the Council has produced extracts, both dated 21 June 2024, from the website of the Belarusian Ministry of Finance and from the website of JSC Holography Industry itself, from which it is clear that, on the date on which the initial acts were adopted, the latter company was an undertaking engaged in the holography sector in Belarus.
40      The extract from the website of JSC Holography Industry itself, provided as item of evidence 6 in evidence file WK 10693/2024 INIT, reproduces, in part, the licence held by that entity in the holography sector in Belarus. That extract shows that, since 2 March 2011, the company in question has been licensed, in Belarus, to produce special materials intended to provide protection against counterfeiting for secure documents and documents with a certain level of protection.
41      Similarly, the extract, dated 21 June 2024, from the website of the Belarusian Ministry of Finance, produced as item of evidence 5 in evidence file WK 10693/2024 INIT, confirms that JSC Holography Industry is one of the undertakings licensed, in Belarus, to produce special materials intended to provide protection against counterfeiting for secure documents and documents with a certain level of protection. That latter extract also makes clear that the licence held by JSC Holography Industry authorises it, in Belarus, to be precise, to produce protection elements in the specific form of holograms and crystallograms.
42      The fact that JSC Holography Industry is licensed in the Belarusian market has furthermore been corroborated subsequently, in the present proceedings, by a document produced by the applicant himself as Annex A.12 to the application, which may be relied on against him in order to find that the reasons underpinning the restrictive measures taken against him are well founded (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2020, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council, T‑166/18, not published, EU:T:2020:50, paragraph 124 and the case-law cited), which reproduces, now in full, the licence held by that company in the Belarusian holography sector. That document therefore confirms that the company in question is licensed, in Belarus, to produce protection elements in the form of holograms and crystallograms.
43      Taken together, those items of evidence show that JSC Holography Industry, with which the applicant, through Tekhnokhimtrade, had ownership links on the date on which the initial acts were adopted, was an undertaking engaged in the holography sector in Belarus.
44      Therefore, it must be concluded that the finding made by the Council in the reasons in the initial acts to the effect that, at the time when those acts were adopted, the applicant was a businessperson with business interests in the holography sector in Belarus is accordingly not incorrect.
45      That conclusion cannot be called into question by the fact, adduced by the applicant, that since 21 August 2024, the date on which he sold all his shares in Tekhnokhimtrade, he has withdrawn completely from the holography sector in Belarus and has no longer had any ties with the entities referred to in the reasons in the initial acts.
46      Although it is clear from Annex A.10 to the application that on 21 August 2024 the applicant did indeed transfer all his shares in Tekhnokhimtrade, it should be noted, at the outset, that that circumstance cannot be taken into account as being relevant, since it manifestly shows a purported change in the applicant’s situation subsequent to the adoption of the initial acts on 26 July 2024.
47      According to settled case-law, the legality of an EU act must be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and law existing at the date on which the act was adopted (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 April 2021, Al-Tarazi v Council, T‑260/19, not published, EU:T:2021:187, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited).
48      It is apparent from all the foregoing considerations that the Council did not make an error of assessment in finding that, on the date on which the initial acts were adopted, the applicant had business interests in the holography sector in Belarus.
–       The monopoly in the holography sector in Belarus artificially created by the Belarusian State in favour of JSC Holography Industry and the benefit that the applicant derived from that monopoly
49      In the reasons in the initial acts, the Council also found that the applicant was benefiting indirectly from a monopoly artificially created by the Belarusian State in favour of JSC Holography Industry, which, according to the Council, is the only company licensed, in Belarus, to produce security holograms and crystallograms for secure forms and documents and alone produces holographic stickers to be affixed, under Belarusian legislation, on a wide range of items, including cash registers and slot machines.
50      In that regard, the Court notes that, although the Council has produced a number of items of evidence showing that JSC Holography Industry was indeed authorised, under a licence issued on 2 March 2011, to produce protection elements in the form of holograms and crystallograms in Belarus (see paragraphs 40 to 42 above), it has not, by contrast, adduced a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to demonstrate either the monopoly that it claims was artificially created by the Belarusian State and that benefited that entity in the holography sector in Belarus, or the advantage that the applicant himself derived from any such position attributed to that company in the Belarusian holography market.
51      Accordingly, first, it cannot be established from the evidence in the case file that, as claimed in the reasons in the initial acts, JSC Holography Industry was the only company licensed, in Belarus, to produce protection elements in the form of holograms and crystallograms, or that it, alone, produced holographic stickers to be affixed, under Belarusian legislation, on goods and on cash registers and slot machines.
52      In that regard, it should be noted first of all that the extract dated 21 June 2024 from the website of the Belarusian Ministry of Finance, referred to in paragraph 41 above, shows that a number of other undertakings, in common with JSC Holography Industry, hold licences authorising them, in Belarus, to produce special materials intended to provide protection against counterfeiting for secure documents and documents with a certain level of protection.
53      Furthermore, contrary to the Council’s claims, it cannot be inferred from the extract in question that JSC Holography Industry was the only entity producing protection elements in the form of holograms and crystallograms in Belarus, on the basis of the fact that, in that extract, only the licence held by that company expressly referred to both those types of protection elements. On the contrary, as the applicant correctly observes, the fact that the licences held by those other undertakings do not specify the type of protection element covered by those licences suggests instead that, unlike JSC Holography Industry, which has a licence limited to security holograms and crystallograms, those entities are authorised to produce all types of protection elements, including those in the specific form of holograms and crystallograms over which, in the reasons in the initial acts, a monopoly is attributed to JSC Holography Industry.
54      That interpretation of the scope of the licences held by other undertakings is moreover supported by the information on their websites. For example, as the applicant correctly observed, the website of one of those undertakings, namely company A, shows that the company in question develops and manufactures, in Belarus, special materials intended to provide protection against counterfeiting for secure documents and documents with a certain level of protection, on paper and plastic media. Specifically, it is stated that company A specialises, in Belarus, in the production of secure plastic cards and that, in doing so, and in order to protect those cards against counterfeiting, the undertaking uses, inter alia, protection elements in the form of holograms.
55      The Court then notes that, although the article of 7 May 2024 by the Belarussian Investigative Center, produced as item of evidence 7 in evidence file WK 10693/2024 INIT, does admittedly include the assertion contained in the reasons in the initial acts that ‘JSC Holography Industry has been the only Belarusian company licensed by the [Belarusian Ministry of Finance] to produce security holograms and crystallograms for security forms and documents’, it is clear that that article also refers to a statement by the founder of that company itself, in which he indicates that a different Belarusian company, of which he is also the founder, namely company B, ‘is the second company after [JSC Holography Industry] that produces holograms’. In that article, the founder of those companies even states that company B ‘is … not as prominent in the [Belarusian] holography market as [JSC Holography Industry], but it turns out to have an interesting history of its own’, and that it ‘was involved in the development of a new type of hologram with coded information for [the Belarusian State security committee]’, thereby raising doubts as to the existence of a monopoly enjoyed by JSC Holography Industry on that market.
56      The fact that company B is licensed in the Belarusian holography market is also demonstrated, first, by the certificate issued by the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) in relation to that company, produced as Annex A.15 to the application, which confirms that the entity in question was, at the time when the initial acts were adopted, licensed to produce, in addition to holograms, holographic protection elements to be affixed to cash registers and slot machines, a monopoly over which is attributed, in the reasons in the initial acts, to JSC Holography Industry. Second, in a letter sent on 11 October 2024 to the applicant’s lawyers and produced by the applicant as Annex A.14 to the application, the general director of company B herself stated that company B had ‘over 30 years of experience in holography’ and produced ‘all types of holographic protection and traceability materials’, including ‘[holographic] means of control for cash registers, and protective [hologram] stickers for [slot] machines in Belarus’.
57      It is apparent from all the foregoing evidence that the Council has not adduced a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to demonstrate the monopoly allegedly enjoyed by JSC Holography Industry on the Belarusian holography market. At the hearing, the Council also, in essence, confirmed that finding by more than once conceding, inter alia, that it was neither completely clear nor even certain that the situation enjoyed by that company in the Belarusian holography sector was, strictly speaking, a monopoly.
58      Second and for the sake of completeness, it must be found that the Council has likewise failed to establish either that the alleged monopoly attributed to JSC Holography Industry was the result of the Belarusian State playing an active role to that effect, or that the monopoly in question benefited the applicant by virtue of his status as the sole shareholder of Tekhnokhimtrade.
59      In that regard, it should be noted that the Council has provided evidence of only three resolutions issued by the Council of Ministers in Belarus showing that, shortly after JSC Holography Industry obtained a licence to produce protection elements, legislation was adopted imposing new labelling and marking obligations for goods and regulating the holographic stickers to be affixed to cash registers and slot machines.
60      However, the applicant annexed to the reply evidence showing that the introduction of regulations on the labelling and marking of goods began, in Belarus, long before JSC Holography Industry obtained its licence in March 2011, thereby disproving that the grant of that licence and adoption of specific legislation in that respect occurred in any way at the same time or close in time.
61      Furthermore, in any event, since it has not been demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that JSC Holography Industry in fact had a monopoly over the production and marketing of protection elements taking the form of holograms and crystallograms and the production of holographic stickers to be affixed to cash registers and slot machines, it cannot be inferred from the fact that regulations were adopted to encourage the use of those protection elements that a monopoly was created in favour of that entity. Similarly, since it has not been established that JSC Holography Industry was in an advantageous position in the Belarusian holography market and that it met with success in that market, it cannot be found that the Council has set out to the requisite legal standard or, with all the more reason, demonstrated the existence of an advantage derived indirectly by the applicant from a monopoly position held by JSC Holography Industry in the market in question, by virtue of being the sole shareholder of Tekhnokhimtrade.
–       Conclusion
62      Having regard to all the foregoing, it must be found that, although the Council has adduced evidence serving to establish the existence of business interests held by the applicant in the holography sector in Belarus, it has not, by contrast, adduced a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to demonstrate, first, a monopoly artificially created by the Belarusian State in favour of JSC Holography Industry in the holography sector in Belarus and, second, the benefit derived by the applicant from that monopoly.
63      Accordingly, in respect of the initial acts, the first plea in law should be upheld.
The maintaining acts
64      As a preliminary point, it is necessary to observe that, by the maintaining acts, the Council renewed the restrictive measures adopted in relation to the applicant on the basis of an entirely revised statement of reasons compared with that in the initial acts, which is now composed of two new reasons concerning, first, his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, by means of which he allegedly supports the regime of President Lukashenko, and, second, his involvement in Reshenie Bank and indirectly in the Dudutki museum complex, which is allegedly benefiting from the budget of the Belarusian State and through which he benefits from the regime of President Lukashenko.
65      As regards the reasons in the maintaining acts, the applicant disputes, first, the finding that, in his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, he supported the regime of President Lukashenko.
66      Second, the applicant refutes the finding that he benefited from the regime of President Lukashenko as a result of his involvement in the Belarusian Reshenie Bank, which has interests in and is itself involved in the Dudutki museum complex, which benefits from the budget of the Belarusian State.
67      In that context, it is necessary to examine each of the elements relied on in the reasons in the maintaining acts, referred to in paragraphs 65 and 66 above, in support of maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue.
–       The applicant’s support for the regime of President Lukashenko in his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus
68      It should be noted at the outset that the applicant is not refuting his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus.
69      The applicant nevertheless denies that he supports the regime of President Lukashenko as a result of his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus. In that regard, he notes, first of all, that the appointment of an honorary consul falls within the exclusive competence of the sending State rather than that of the receiving State, and therefore, in his case, he owes his status as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus solely to the Philippines and not to Belarus itself or to his purported ties to that regime. He further emphasises that honorary consuls are as a general rule entrusted with representing the interests of the sending State rather than those of the receiving State, and adds that his role as honorary consul does not afford him, in Belarus, any material benefit or any administrative or criminal immunity as a citizen or businessperson. He submits, last, that the Council is not entitled to find that he supports the regime of President Lukashenko merely as a result of that role, without, however, demonstrating how exactly, through his own actions, he provided political or any other type of support to the regime in question.
70      In the present case, as regards the applicant’s support for the regime of President Lukashenko in his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, it should be noted that several press articles in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1 do indeed concur as to the fact that, in many countries, including Belarus, the function of honorary consul is performed by businesspersons close to the existing regime and gives rise to a number of benefits, immunities and privileges in the receiving State.
71      The article of 13 January 2021 published on the ‘Euroradio.fm’ website, the article of 14 November 2022 by the Belarussian Investigative Center and the article of 12 November 2024 published on the ‘BuroMedia.io’ website, a Belarusian investigative media outlet, produced as items of evidence 5, 4 and 7 respectively in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1, accordingly show the Republic of Belarus as purportedly being one of the 20 countries with the highest number of honorary consuls who have been and continue to be involved in scandals or criminality. Among them are businesspersons close to the regime of President Lukashenko who have become rich by virtue of their ties to that regime. It is also stated that such functions enabled them to enjoy a number of benefits and immunities in the receiving State, such as being able to avoid certain taxes and duties, administrative and criminal immunity in the exercise of their official functions and access to the highest officials and leading businesspersons in the receiving State.
72      However, those items of evidence cannot suffice to constitute a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to demonstrate the fact that, merely in his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, the applicant supported the regime of President Lukashenko.
73      In that regard, it should be noted, first of all, that the aforementioned press articles contain, for the main part, only general information on the ambiguous role played by honorary consuls in certain countries, including the Republic of Belarus, and the benefits associated with that function, but do not refer specifically to the case of the applicant or to the role played by him either in the Philippines or in Belarus. Accordingly, among those articles, only that of 14 November 2022 by the Belarussian Investigative Center, cited in paragraph 71 above, addresses the specific case of the applicant and his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus.
74      It is clear that the article of 14 November 2022 by the Belarussian Investigative Center likewise provides no details as to how the applicant, in his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, actually supports the regime of President Lukashenko, or the form that such support takes. Accordingly, the article refers to the applicant and to his role as honorary consul, but does not identify any ongoing project or current interest in the Philippines in particular, in relation either to the applicant himself or to the regime of President Lukashenko. It is also clear that the statement of reasons in the maintaining acts, for its part, provides no further clarity as to how the applicant allegedly supports that regime as a result of the role in question. On the contrary, it is apparent from that statement of reasons, set out in paragraph 15 above, that the Council found the applicant to be supporting that regime solely as a result of that role, and that no further details were provided as to how he used that role to support the regime in question.
75      It must also be noted that the press articles produced by the Council, referred to in paragraph 71 above, are not all unanimous and clear as to how close honorary consuls are to the existing regime in the receiving State and the relationship of support that they have with it. A number of those articles thus tend more to highlight support provided by honorary consuls to the sending State rather than to the receiving State.
76      In that regard, the applicant recalls that the regime applicable to honorary consular officials and to the consular posts headed by them is laid down in Chapter III of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, which confirms the close link that exists between honorary consuls and the sending State by providing in particular, first, that the appointment of an honorary consul falls within the exclusive competence of the sending State rather than that of the receiving State and, second, that honorary consuls are generally entrusted to represent the interests of the sending State and not those of the receiving State.
77      It should be noted that it is indeed apparent from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, specifically from Article 10(1) and Article 5(a) thereof, that, first, appointment to the position of honorary consul falls primarily within the competence of the sending State and, second, the function in question consists, inter alia, in ‘protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate’. Those provisions further bear out the existence of a strong link between honorary consuls and their sending State and therefore do not serve to support the premiss that performing the function of honorary consul alone entails the provision of support to the existing regime in the receiving State.
78      It is apparent from the foregoing that the evidence provided by the Council does not serve to substantiate, to the requisite legal standard, its claims that, merely in his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, the applicant supported the regime of President Lukashenko.
79      Accordingly, the present reason in the maintaining acts is insufficiently substantiated.
–       The benefit derived by the applicant from the regime of President Lukashenko as a result of his involvement in Reshenie Bank, which has interests in and is itself involved in the Dudutki museum complex, which benefits from the budget of the Belarusian State
80      At the outset, it should be noted that the applicant disputes that, on the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted, he had any involvement in Reshenie Bank or any link with the latter or with the Dudutki museum complex. He also refutes that he derives a benefit from the regime of President Lukashenko as a result of any such links.
81      In that regard, it is clear that, as the applicant asserts, the evidence produced by the Council does not constitute a sufficiently specific, precise and consistent body of evidence to establish that, on the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted, he was involved in Reshenie Bank. Similarly, nor has the Council substantiated to the requisite legal standard its claim that, in essence, there are indirect links between the applicant and the Dudutki museum complex. Nor has it demonstrated that the complex in question or the applicant himself benefits from the budget of the Belarusian State.
82      First, in the light of the links existing between Reshenie Bank and the applicant, it is necessary, first of all, to note that the Council has produced only one item of evidence expressly showing such links, namely a press article of 12 April 2023 by the Belarussian Investigative Center, that is to say, item of evidence 8 in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1. Specifically, in that article, the applicant is presented as being, at that time, a minority shareholder of Reshenie Bank and chairman of the supervisory board of that bank, which was previously known as Infobank and then Trustbank.
83      It must be noted, next, that, in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1, the Council has not provided any conclusive evidence serving to support the information contained in the press article referred to in paragraph 82 above. Indeed, the only additional evidence adduced by the Council to substantiate links between the applicant and Reshenie Bank, that is to say, items of evidence 10 and 12 in that evidence file, are merely extracts from the website of Yandex Maps and from the corresponding application, which offer a Russian online maps service, from which it is apparent only that Reshenie Bank and the Philippines consulate in Belarus, the applicant’s workplace in his role as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, share a similar address and are in the same property complex in Belarus.
84      First, it cannot be inferred merely from the fact that Reshenie Bank and the Philippines consulate in Belarus, the applicant’s workplace in his capacity as honorary consul of the Philippines in Belarus, are in the same property complex in Belarus, that the applicant himself is involved in that bank.
85      Second, it should be noted that the applicant, for his part, has produced Annexes D.9 and D.10 to his statement of modification, from which it is clear that, on the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted, he had no link with Reshenie Bank, in particular that he was neither a shareholder of that bank nor performed the role of chairman of the supervisory board within it, contrary to the claims made in the press article referred to in paragraph 82 above.
86      Although, admittedly, Annex D.9 to the statement of modification, that is to say, the extract of 17 March 2025 from the Belarusian unified national register of legal persons and sole traders, cannot be regarded as relevant to examination of the legality of the maintaining acts, which is to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and law existing at the date on which those acts were adopted (see paragraph 47 above), since that annex contains no information about the ownership structure of Reshenie Bank before the date on which the extract was issued, 17 March 2025, and in particular contains no information about the ownership structure of that bank on the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted, the same is not true of Annex D.10 to that statement.
87      It is clear that Annex D.10 to the statement of modification, for its part, consists in a letter dated 28 January 2025, that is to say, before the adoption of the maintaining acts, from the chairperson of the board of directors of Reshenie Bank, in which the latter states that, since 1 August 2024, in accordance with a resolution adopted on 2 July 2024 by the general shareholders’ meeting of that bank, the applicant has no longer been the chairman of its supervisory board. The chairperson of the board of directors took the opportunity to add that, on the date on which those acts are adopted, the applicant had no ties to the bank in question and in particular was neither a beneficial owner or a shareholder of that bank nor a member of its board of directors, and did not hold any office on its management bodies.
88      Although the letter in question appears to have been written at the request of the representatives of the applicant himself for the purposes of his defence and, as a result, has only limited probative value (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 February 2018, Klyuyev v Council, T‑731/15, EU:T:2018:90, paragraph 124), it is nevertheless capable of casting doubt on whether the claims contained in the one press article, referred to in paragraph 82 above, that the Council has produced to substantiate its finding, made in the present reason in the maintaining acts, that the applicant is involved in Reshenie Bank were true and contemporaneous on the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted.
89      It therefore cannot be concluded that the applicant’s involvement in Reshenie Bank has been sufficiently substantiated by the Council.
90      Second, as regards indirect links between the applicant and the Dudutki museum complex, it must be noted that the Council has indeed provided, as item of evidence 9 in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1, an extract from the website of that museum complex showing that, on 11 December 2024, that is to say, a short time before adoption of the maintaining acts, Reshenie Bank was one of the partners of that museum complex.
91      However, it must also be noted that, in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1, the Council has not provided any evidence making it possible to determine the nature of the partnership in question and, a fortiori, the implications of that partnership in so far as concerns the applicant.
92      Furthermore, it must be noted in any event that, even assuming that item of evidence 9 in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1 could be regarded as sufficient for the purposes of substantiating the existence of links between Reshenie Bank and the Dudutki museum complex, it cannot be inferred as a result that the applicant himself has indirect links with that museum complex since the Council has failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that there are links between that bank and the applicant himself (see paragraph 89 above).
93      Accordingly, it cannot be found that any indirect links between the applicant and the Dudutki museum complex have been sufficiently substantiated by the Council.
94      That finding cannot be called into question by Annexes F.5 and F.6 to the observations on the statement of modification, which are extracts from the Belarusian unified national register of legal persons and sole traders of 20 December 2024 and 11 April 2025 respectively, from which it is apparent that, for nearly 10 years, that is to say, from 22 April 2014 to 21 January 2025, the applicant had a holding in the capital of the Dudutki museum complex, alongside Tekhnokhimtrade.
95      It is clear, first, that the extract from the Belarusian unified national register of legal persons and sole traders, which the Council adduced as Annex F.5 to its observations on the statement of modification, shows a date subsequent to the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted, and therefore, in principle, in accordance with the case-law set out in paragraph 47 above, cannot be taken into consideration in assessing the legality of those acts.
96      Second, although, for its part, the extract from the Belarusian unified national register of legal persons and sole traders produced by the Council in Annex F.6 to its observations on the statement of modification shows a date earlier than the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted, it must be noted that the Council does not submit that it was unable to produce that document previously and has not provided any explanation or ground justifying why that document, adduced in the context of the present action, should be admissible.
97      Unless subsequent reasons for the maintaining acts were to be permitted, the Council cannot rely, before the Court, on factors on which it did not rely when adopting those acts in order to justify maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 March 2022, Sabra v Council, T‑249/20, EU:T:2022:140, paragraph 49).
98      Furthermore, it is clear that those documents show that the links between the applicant and the Dudutki museum complex had ended on 21 January 2025 and therefore before the date on which the maintaining acts were adopted, and do not serve to substantiate the premiss that, on that date, the applicant had links with that museum complex.
99      Third and in any event, as regards whether the Dudutki museum complex or the applicant himself benefited from the budget of the Belarusian State, it should be noted that, as items of evidence 1 and 2 in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1, the Council has produced two press articles, dated 25 September 2023 and 25 May 2023 respectively, published on the ‘sb.by’ website and on the ‘belta.by’ website, indicating that the museum complex in question was one of the educational sites recommended by the Belarusian Ministry of Education. Those articles state that the museum complex concerned regularly hosts children in the context of excursions organised by educational establishments or summer camps and that those excursions and summer camps are funded by the Belarusian State since they are intended, in essence, to teach, and to increase young people’s awareness of, the history of the Republic of Belarus. As item of evidence 3 in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1, the Council has also produced an extract from the website of the museum complex in question, which shows the proximity between that museum complex and the regime of President Lukashenko, describing how it takes part each year in celebrations for ‘Victory Day’ in the presence of Belarusian soldiers and special forces.
100    However, although items of evidence 1 to 3 in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1 do indeed show a certain proximity between the Dudutki museum complex and the regime of President Lukashenko, they are nevertheless insufficient to substantiate the claim that the museum complex benefits from the budget of the Belarusian State, and with all the more reason insufficient for a finding that the applicant himself benefits from that regime as a result of his purported links with the museum complex in question.
101    The Council has not adduced any evidence making it possible to determine either how significant the excursions and summer camps encouraged and subsidised by the Belarusian Government are in the overall activity of the Dudutki museum complex or the extent of the subsidies provided by the regime of President Lukashenko in relation to them. In the absence of further detail, it is conceivable that those activities represent only a small part of the activity of that museum complex and that the subsidies granted are used solely for organising those excursions and summer camps, without the museum complex necessarily deriving an advantage or benefit, particularly a financial benefit, from them.
102    The same applies with all the more reason to any benefit derived by the applicant himself as a result of his alleged links with the Dudutki museum complex, which, as is apparent from paragraph 93 above, have not been sufficiently substantiated by the Council.
103    In that regard, it should also be noted that the Council has adduced only one piece of evidence showing proximity between the applicant and the regime of President Lukashenko that would have enabled the applicant to become rich, that is to say, an article of 11 December 2024 by the Belarussian Investigative Center, produced as item of evidence 8 in evidence file WK 239/2025 REV 1. That press article, in addition to being an isolated piece of evidence, concerns the applicant’s participation in construction projects financed by that regime in Venezuela in the 2000s through a third-party company, which have no bearing on the claims contained in the reasons in the contested acts and which cannot therefore be taken into account to illustrate the finding that the applicant benefits from the regime of President Lukashenko as a result of his alleged links with the Dudutki museum complex.
104    Therefore, it cannot be found that the existence of a benefit derived by the Dudutki museum complex or by the applicant himself from the budget of the Belarusian State has been sufficiently substantiated by the Council.
105    Accordingly, the present reason in the maintaining acts is, for its part also, insufficiently substantiated.
–       Conclusion
106    Since the reasons in the maintaining acts, referred to in paragraphs 65 and 66 above, have not been sufficiently substantiated, the first plea in law must be upheld in respect of those acts.
Conclusion on the first plea in law
107    It is apparent from the conclusions set out in paragraphs 62 and 106 above that the Council has not substantiated to the requisite legal standard the reasons concerning the applicant in the initial acts and the maintaining acts. Consequently, the applicant is correct to claim that those reasons are vitiated by errors of assessment.
108    In those circumstances, the first plea in law must be upheld and the contested acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, without any need to rule on the other pleas in law raised in support of the claim for annulment.
Temporal effects of annulment of the contested acts
109    The Council asks the Court, in the alternative, in the event that it annuls the contested acts in so far as they concern the applicant, to order also that the effects of Decision 2025/385 be maintained in so far as concerns the applicant until the annulment in part of Implementing Regulation 2025/386 takes effect.
110    In that regard, it should be recalled that, by Decision 2025/385, the Council had maintained the applicant’s name on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures contained in Annex I to Decision 2012/642, from 26 February 2025 to 28 February 2026.
111    However, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/427 of 26 February 2026 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ L, 2026/427), the Council updated the list of persons subject to restrictive measures contained in Annex I to Decision 2012/642, maintaining the applicant’s name on that list until 28 February 2027.
112    Accordingly, although the annulment of Decision 2025/385, in so far as it relates to the applicant, entails annulment of the inclusion of his name on the list in Annex I to Decision 2012/642 for the period up to 28 February 2026, that annulment cannot, however, call into question the legality of the inclusion of his name on the list in that annex for the subsequent period, since the present action does not concern Decision 2026/427.
113    Consequently, given that the Council has, as at the date hereof, updated the list of persons subject to restrictive measures contained in Annex I to Decision 2012/642, and given that the applicant is subject to new restrictive measures, the Council’s claim in the alternative relating to maintenance of the effects of Decision 2025/385 has become devoid of purpose.
Costs
114    Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Council has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
hereby:
1.      Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2024/2116 of 26 July 2024 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2113 of 26 July 2024 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine; Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/385 of 24 February 2025 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine; and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/386 of 24 February 2025 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine in so far as they concern Mr Viktor Arkadievich Chevtsov;
2.      Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Sampol Pucurull
Laitenberger
Stancu
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 22 April 2026.
V. Di Bucci
L. Truchot
Registrar
President
*      Language of the case: English.