Case T-176/25: Action brought on 10 March 2025 – Belyavtseva v Council
Date: 2025-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to an effective remedy, right to justice








C_202503298EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3298


24.6.2025






Action brought on 10 March 2025 – Belyavtseva v Council


(Case T-176/25)

(C/2025/3298)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Olga Alekseevna Belyavtseva (Odinzovo, Russia) (represented by: C. Zatschler, SC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Article 1(1), and Article 2(1) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 (1) and Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;










—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/3174 (3), in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the Annex of Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3188 (4), insofar as it includes the applicant’s name in Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 2024/2642;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay to the applicant EUR 75 000 for non-material damage;










—


order the Council of the European Union to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant.





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 a violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons; in particular it is unclear from the statement of reasons:






—


whether the references to the applicant being the ‘wife and business partner’ of another listed individual (both of which are factually untrue) had any relevance for the purposes of either of the listing criteria; and










—


who the ‘natural or legal persons, entities or bodies’ are whom the applicant is accused of supporting.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 and Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, establishing the restrictive measures regime and the listing criteria under the contested legal acts; in particular, the applicant submits that the regime goes beyond the competence of the Council acting under Article 29 TEU in at least two respects:






(i)


to the extent that it is targeted at conduct within the Union itself, it exceeds the territorial scope of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, all the more so in that it purports to cover national security, which by virtue of Article 4(2) TEU is ‘the sole responsibility of each Member State’;










(ii)


to the extent that it targets acts which constitute criminal offences under the law of one or several of the Member States, it exceeds the material scope of the Common Foreign and Security Policy by straying into matters reserved to the former Area of Freedom, Security and Justice pillar, now governed by Title V of the TFEU, notably Article 83 TFEU.




In addition, to the extent that the restrictive measures are targeted at acts that themselves amount to criminal offences committed within the Union and punishable as such under the laws of Member States, the restrictive measures breach fundamental principles of natural justice, enshrined notably in Articles 47 to 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging errors of assessment, in four respects:






(i)


errors in application of criterion (a) to the person in connection with whom the applicant is listed, leading to an error in application of criteria (b) and (c) to the applicant;










(ii)


failure by the Council to discharge the burden of proof incumbent on it to substantiate the listing of the applicant;










(iii)


error of assessment concerning the application of criterion (b) to the applicant;










(iv)


error of assessment concerning the application of criterion (c) to the applicant.




The applicant specifically submits that in application of a general principle of the law of evidence, where several methods of proof are available to the institutions, they are obliged to rely on the most reliable method. In any event, the Council cannot justify its reliance on media articles by the lack of investigative powers where the material facts are situated within the EU, and the case law based on the absence of investigative powers in third countries justifying reliance on such information is inapplicable.










4.


Fourth plea alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights, in particular the right to respect for family life, protected by Article 7 of the Charter.










5.


In support of the action for compensation, the applicant relies notably on press and media coverage replicating a defamatory depiction of the applicant as being associated with or supporting an individual alleged to be involved in a serious criminal offence.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 of 8 October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2024/2643).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 of 8 October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilizing activities (OJ L, 2024/2642).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/3174 of 16 December 2024 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2024/3174).

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3188 of 16 December 2024 implementing Regulation (EU 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilizing activities (OJ L, 2024/3188).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3298/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)