Case C-805/24 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2024 by Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko against the judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2024 in Case T-644/22, Timchenko and Timchenko v Council
Date: 2024-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, abuse of power, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_202500253EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/253


20.1.2025






Appeal brought on 21 November 2024 by Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko against the judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2024 in Case T-644/22, Timchenko and Timchenko v Council


(Case C-805/24 P)

(C/2025/253)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko and Elena Petrovna Timchenko (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, S. Bonifassi, E. Fedorova, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 September 2024, delivered by the Grand Chamber, in Case T-644/22, including in so far as it ordered the appellants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council;










—


rule on the merits of the application and annul Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 (1) in so far as it amends Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (2) and imposes a reporting obligation on the appellants;










—


order the Council to pay the costs at first instance and in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants argue that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on two grounds:
In the 
first ground of appeal
, the appellants claim that the reasoning set out in the judgment is inadequate in that (i) the General Court did not state clearly and unequivocally in its judgment whether the reporting obligation is a restrictive measure or a measure implementing a restrictive measure, and (ii) the General Court did not put forward adequate reasons or grounds in law for its finding that the Council did not exceed its powers by adopting the measures provided for in Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.
In the 
second ground of appeal
, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in applying and interpreting Article 215 TFEU and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Rosneft, by finding that the Council was entitled to adopt, solely within the framework of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, restrictive measures against persons subject to penalties consisting of a reporting obligation, irrespective of the fact that those obligations were not expressly provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 (3) amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP, or that the Council was entitled to adopt in that instrument measures implementing restrictive measures.


(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 of 21 July 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 194, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 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. 6).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/253/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)