Case C-177/25 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2025 by Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 18 December 2024 in Case T-732/22, Deripaska v Council
Date: 2025-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, judicial review, natural person, principle of proportionality, proof








C_202502187EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2187


22.4.2025






Appeal brought on 28 February 2025 by Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 18 December 2024 in Case T-732/22, Deripaska v Council


(Case C-177/25 P)

(C/2025/2187)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart, J. Goffin, avocats)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






1.


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 December 2024, Deripaska v Council (T-732/22, EU:T:2024:903) (‘the judgment under appeal’), including in so far as it ordered the appellant to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.










2.


dispose of the action on its merits and, accordingly, annul the following contested acts:






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 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 239, p. 149) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing 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 239, p. 1);










—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p.134) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1);










—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3);










—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2024 L 847) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 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 (OJ 2024 L 849).














3.


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

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds concerning procedural errors and errors of law:






—


a first ground alleging errors of law resulting from the fact that the General Court failed to observe the rules on the taking of evidence and on the burden of proof;










—


a second ground alleging errors of law resulting from a failure to state the grounds;










—


a third ground alleging that the General Court disregarded the scope of its judicial review and substituted the grounds for the decisions;










—


a fourth ground alleging an error of law in the interpretation and application of the criterion laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP (‘criterion g’);










—


a fifth ground of appeal alleging an error of assessment of the plea concerning proportionality.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2187/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)