Case C-228/25 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2025 by MegaFon OAO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-193/23, MegaFon v Council
Date: 2025-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, legal person, proof, right to an effective remedy








C_202502520EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2520


12.5.2025






Appeal brought on 25 March 2025 by MegaFon OAO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-193/23, MegaFon v Council


(Case C-228/25 P)

(C/2025/2520)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: MegaFon OAO (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto, V. Villante, M. Pirovano and B. Bonafini, avvocati)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 January 2025, MegaFon v Council (T-193/23, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2025:7);










—


annul the acts challenged at first instance, namely:






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/434 of 25 February 2023 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Regulation (EU) 2023/427 of 25 February 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine; (2)











—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1517 of 20 July 2023 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine; (3)











—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/422 of 29 January 2024 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine; (4)















—


in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;
and, in any event,










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the appellant’s costs, both at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In its appeal, the appellant relies on the following eight grounds:






—


first ground: unlawful refusal to grant an application to produce additional evidence, infringement of Article 85(3) and Article 92(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, distortion of the facts, infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU;










—


second ground: infringement by the General Court of Article 296 TFEU on the obligation to state reasons, infringement of Article 215 TFEU in conjunction with Article 29 TEU;










—


third ground: error in law concerning the burden of proof and the quality of the evidence; the General Court misconstrued the scope of its judicial review and amended the act of the Council;










—


fourth ground: the General Court erred in law by establishing a presumption in order to include the appellant’s name on the list; undue reversal of the burden of proof, infringement of the right to an effective judicial remedy (Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), distortion of the relevant evidence and facts;










—


fifth ground: infringement and misinterpretation of the criterion of ‘support’, distortion of the evidence and the facts;










—


sixth ground: the General Court failed to hold of its own motion that the Council infringed essential procedural requirements; in any event, the contested acts infringe essential procedural requirements;










—


seventh ground: the General Court erred in law by holding that the fact that the Council did not prepare and disclose evidence during the administrative procedure does not constitute an infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; in the alternative, the General Court erred by not upholding the plea of illegality concerning Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (5) and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine; (6)











—


eighth ground: breach and misinterpretation of the general principles of EU law and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in particular.






(1)  
            OJ 2023 L 59 I, p. 593.

(2)  
            OJ 2023 L 59 I, p. 6.

(3)  
            OJ 2023 L 184, p. 40.

(4)  OJ L 2024/422.

(5)  
            OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13.

(6)  
            OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2520/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)