Case C-326/24 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2024 by Grodno Azot AAT and Khimvolokno Plant against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 21 February 2024 in Case T-117/22, Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council
Date: 2024-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, legal person, proof








C_202404576EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4576


29.7.2024






Appeal brought on 2 May 2024 by Grodno Azot AAT and Khimvolokno Plant against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 21 February 2024 in Case T-117/22, Grodno Azot and Khimvolokno Plant v Council


(Case C-326/24 P)

(C/2024/4576)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Grodno Azot AAT and Khimvolokno Plant (represented by: N. Tuominen, avocată, M. Krestiyanova, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal; and










—


uphold the application for annulment of the Contested Acts (1) at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant respectfully requests that the Court should set aside the contested judgment on the following grounds.
First, the General Court committed an error of law by relying exclusively on the data about dividends, which was not at all in the first Council evidence file. In doing so, it retroactively justified the Council’s designation reason related to the support of the ‘regime’, which is an unlawful reversal of the burden of proof and a breach of other principles and rules on evidence.
Second, the General Court committed an error of law by misinterpreting the nature and function of dividends and any tax regime in the world, by concluding (a) that taxes applied to everyone in Belarus, whereas the payment of dividends applied to only a selected category of entities and (b) that Edict No 637 defined a certain basis from which the dividends were calculated.
Third, the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment by omitting to rule on whether the economic support it established was also ‘substantial’ as it was qualified in the Appellant’s reasons for designation (‘Statement of reasons’). The General Court’s analysis is legally incomplete and hence, inadequate.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law by making and excessively broad interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642 as not being addressed to individuals and private companies.


(1)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021, L 430I, p. 16); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021, L 430I, p. 1); Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 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 2023, L 61, p. 41); and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 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 2023, L 61, p. 20).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4576/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)