Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by PAO Rosneft Oil Company, formerly NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO, Tagulskoe OOO against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-715/14: Rosneft and Others v Council

(Case C-732/18 P)

(2019/C 93/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: PAO Rosneft Oil Company, formerly NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO, Tagulskoe OOO (represented by: L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment in so far as it concerns the grounds concerned by this appeal;

— give a final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and

— order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal concerns contested non-conventional oil restrictions, contested capital market restrictions and contested legal claims restrictions as contained in Council Regulation No 833/2014 (1) and/or Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (2).

The appellants rely on seven pleas:

First plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the Council complied with Article 296 TFEU when adopting the contested non-conventional oil restrictions.

Second plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the Council complied with Article 296 TFEU when adopting the contested capital market restrictions.

Third plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that there exists a rational connection between the contested non-conventional oil restrictions and the objective found to be pursued by them.

Fourth plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the contested nonconventional oil restrictions do not infringe the appellants' fundamental rights to property and to conduct a business.

Fifth plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that contested legal claims restrictions are not disproportionate and do not otherwise infringe the appellants' fundamental right to property.

Sixth plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the contested capital market restrictions comply with the principle of proportionality and do not infringe the appellants' fundamental right to conduct a business.

Seventh plea: The General Court erred in law when it determined that the contested nonconventional oil restrictions and contested capital market restrictions are justified by the security exceptions of the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 229, p. 1).

(2) Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 229, p. 13).