Case T-286/25: Action brought on 2 May 2025 – Gutseriev v Council
Date: 2025-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, protection of privacy, right to property








C_202503542EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3542


7.7.2025






Action brought on 2 May 2025 – Gutseriev v Council


(Case T-286/25)

(C/2025/3542)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Senior Counsel, J. Pobjoy, Barrister-at-Law, and D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, first, Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/385 of 24 February 2025 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1) and, second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/386 of 24 February 2025 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, (2) (together, the ‘2025 contested acts’), insofar as they apply to the applicant;










—


declare, in the alternative, that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) (3) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) (4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the applicant, the 2025 contested acts;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.





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 that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that there was a sufficient factual basis to justify the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue on the basis of the criteria set out in the 2025 contested acts.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Article 296 TFEU by providing an inadequate statement of reasons in the 2025 contested acts.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the rights to private life, property and freedom to conduct business.










4.


Fourth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 263 TFEU, if the designation criterion in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation 765/2006 is to be interpreted to capture any form of support or any form of benefit.






(1)  OJ L 2025/385.

(2)  OJ L 2025/386.

(3)  
            OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1 (readers may consult the consolidated text online).

(4)  
            OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1 (see consolidated text online).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3542/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)