Case T-111/25: Action brought on 12 February 2025 – Sergiyenko v Council
Date: 2025-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, financial transaction, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality








C_202502099EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2099


14.4.2025






Action brought on 12 February 2025 – Sergiyenko v Council


(Case T-111/25)

(C/2025/2099)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vladimir Vladimirovich Sergiyenko (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: V. Wester, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/3174 of 16 December 2024 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities, in so far as the name of Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Sergiyenko is included in the list of natural persons in Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643;










—


in the alternative, the lifting of the restrictive measures against Vladimir Vladimirovich Sergiyenko in relation to payment transactions within the EU;










—


order the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Sergiyenko.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the applicant has not engaged in any anti-constitutional actions
The applicant has not carried out any actions aimed at undermining the fundamental values of the EU and its Member States, their security, stability, independence and integrity, as well as those of international organisations and third countries, through hybrid activities of various kinds, including the use of coordinated information manipulation and influence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has not provided sufficient reasoning
The reasons put forward by the defendant were not sufficiently substantiated. The defendant relies predominantly on defamatory press reports. In doing so, the defendant overlooked the fact that the reports were predominantly untrue factual allegations to the detriment of the applicant, against which the applicant had already successfully defended himself.
Furthermore, the defendant wrongly relies on summary proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg and overlooks the fact that the pending main proceedings before the Administrative Court of Berlin have not yet been decided and, in particular, do not contain any circumstances that could justify EU sanctions.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
The applicant has been living in Germany for 33 years and has a son who is a German citizen. His wife works and lives in Russia. The sanctions imposed on him would make the applicant homeless. The applicant is also unable to return to Ukraine.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that payment transactions should be restored
The applicant must be allowed to make payments within Germany in order to finance the court proceedings and legal fees pending in Germany.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2099/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)