Case C-338/25 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2025 by Alexander Ponomarenko against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2025 in Case T-249/22, Ponomarenko v Council of the European Union
Date: 2025-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, natural person, proof








C_202503511EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3511


7.7.2025






Appeal brought on 15 May 2025 by Alexander Ponomarenko against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2025 in Case T-249/22, Ponomarenko v Council of the European Union


(Case C-338/25 P)

(C/2025/3511)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Alexander Ponomarenko (represented by: M. Komuczky, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






1.


set aside, in accordance with Article 256 TFEU, the judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2025, Ponomarenko v Council (T-249/22); (1)











2.


annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the following, in so far as they relate to the appellant: Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 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, (3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145, (4) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation No 269/2014, (5) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145, (6) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, (7) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145, (8) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, (9) Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145, (10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014; (11)











3.


order, in accordance with Article 138 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court made substantial errors of law by breaching the principle of equality of arms and rationalising ex post the restrictive measures on the basis of events that were not referred to in the statement of reasons.
A breach of the principle of equality of arms occurred when the General Court applied different standards of proof and rejected the extensive evidence from primary sources submitted by the appellant, while it accepted unreliable and incorrect evidence from secondary sources from the Council, without critical assessment. The restrictive measures were rationalised ex post when the General Court based its reasoning on arguments that were not referred to in the Council’s statement of reasons.
The appellant submits that, further, the General Court made findings at odds with the evidence before it and applied incorrect rules of evidence. Moreover, the applicant’s fundamental and procedural rights were infringed. The judgment is, at several points, contradictory and fails to state sufficient reasons. In addition, the General Court erred in law by reversing the burden of proof onto the appellant in respect of many important aspects.
Lastly, the appellant claims that the application of the criterion of association was incorrect in law. The rules of evidence were misapplied in that respect. The General Court heavily distorted the appellant’s pleas and set out the criterion of association incorrectly.


(1)  EU:T:2025:202.

(2)  
            OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1.

(3)  
            OJ 2022 L 58, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149.

(5)  
            OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1.

(6)  
            OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134.

(7)  
            OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1.

(8)  
            OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104.

(9)  
            OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3.

(10)  OJ L, 2024/847.

(11)  OJ L, 2024/849.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3511/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)