Case C-231/25 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-748/22, Kantor v Council
Date: 2025-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, entrepreneur, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, proof








C_202502521EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2521


12.5.2025






Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-748/22, Kantor v Council


(Case C-231/25 P)

(C/2025/2521)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart and F. Patuelli, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (First Chamber) of 15 January 2025, T-748/22, including in so far as it ordered the appellant to pay the costs;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the annulment of the contested decisions in so far as they maintain the appellant in the lists annexed to those decisions, namely:






(a)


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);










(b)


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);










(c)


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);










(d)


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 L 2024/847) 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 L 2024/849);














—


order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal:

First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘businessperson’ (first part), of the concept of ‘activity’ (second part) and of the concept of ‘leading’ (third part) in the light of the various interpretative approaches in EU law.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality set out in Article 5(4) TEU, in the General Court’s analysis concerning the proportionality of the individual measures adopted vis-à-vis the appellant.

Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rules on the standard of proof (first part) and of the rules on the burden of proof and the taking of evidence (second part) as regards the examination by the General Court of the Council’s obligation to adduce credible evidence and to bring a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging distortion of evidence by the General Court.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2521/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)