Case T-137/25: Action brought on 25 February 2025 – Utair v Council
Date: 2025-02-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, proof, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202502409EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2409


28.4.2025






Action brought on 25 February 2025 – Utair v Council


(Case T-137/25)

(C/2025/2409)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Aviation Company ‘Utair’ OAO (Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia) (represented by: C. Ghrenassia, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

– The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/3182 of 16 December 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3183 of 16 December 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing.










—


The first part of the first plea concerns the Council’s failure to disclose to the applicant, within a reasonable time, all the administrative and non-confidential documents concerning the measure at issue.










—


The second part of the first plea states that the documents sent, late, by the Council cannot be construed as evidence for the purposes of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










—


The final part of the first plea concerns the lack of individual notification of the measure at issue to the applicant, in breach of the combined provisions of Article 3(2) of Decision 2014/145, as amended, and Article 14(2) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons.










—


The plea states that the Council failed to comply with the enhanced requirement to state reasons with regard to the initial inclusion of a person on the sanctions list, in the absence of any identification of the actual and specific reasons justifying that measure, thereby reversing the burden of proof, in breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment concerning all of the following:










—


criterion (b) referred to in Regulation 269/2014, in that the Council failed to show that the applicant supports, materially and financially, actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, it being noted moreover that the Council adduced evidence that, on the contrary, casts doubt on that proposition;










—


criterion (f) referred to in Regulation 269/2014, in that the Council failed to show that the applicant derives a qualitative benefit from the Government of the Russian Federation, it being noted moreover that the Council adduced evidence that, on the contrary, tends to show not a benefit, a profit or an advantage, but a loss for the applicant; and










—


the alleged association between the applicant and Mr Vladimir Bogdanov, in so far as, inter alia, the Council fails to support that claim with any contemporaneous, correct, and reliable evidence.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2409/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)