Case T-328/25: Action brought on 26 May 2025 – Aven v Council
Date: 2025-05-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, consortium, economic sanctions, entrepreneur, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_202503917EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3917


21.7.2025






Action brought on 26 May 2025 – Aven v Council


(Case T-328/25)

(C/2025/3917)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Petr Aven (Klauģulejas, Latvia) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/528 of 14 March 2025 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/527 of 14 March 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 13 pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, of Article 3 of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and of the obligation to conduct a periodic review. The applicant submits that the Republic of Latvia’s refusal to review the applicant’s situation invalidates the acts undertaken.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant submits that the obligation to conduct a periodic review was infringed by the maintenance of claims which the Council’s own sources establish are obsolete and by the failure to take the applicant’s compelling arguments into account.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criteria (a) and (d). According to the applicant, all the claims in connection with the company AlfaStrakhovanie are incorrect, since the applicant no longer has any connection to that company.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (a). According to the applicant, the claim that ‘the insurance company AlfaStrakhovanie, which is part of Alfa Group Consortium, provides insurance to the vehicles of the Federal Service of the National Guard of the Russian Federation (Rosgvardia), whose units operate in the occupied regions of Ukraine under Russian control’ is incorrect.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (a). The applicant submits that the claim that ‘AlfaStrakhovanie has also provided insurance to companies such as the JSC Kalashnikov Concern and the Central Scientific-Research Institute for Precision Machine Engineering (TsNIITochMash), whose weapons are widely used by the Russian military in Ukraine, including during the atrocities in Bucha’ is incorrect.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (a). The applicant submits that the claim that ‘X5 Retail Group, another company of Alfa Group Consortium, cooperates with JSC Voentorg’ is incorrect.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant submits that the claim in connection with the company A1 is incorrect and can in no way justify the criteria referred to.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (g) (businessperson involved in an economic sector providing substantial revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation). The applicant submits that the Council has not established that he is a businessperson ‘involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (g) (leading businessperson). According to the applicant, the Council has not established that he is a businessperson influencing the Russian Government.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (g) (leading businessperson). According to the applicant, the Council has not established that he is a ‘leading’ businessperson.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (j). The applicant submits that the claim that ‘in 2024, the Russian authorities expropriated the property rights of Union holding companies in the Russian holding company of Alfa Bank, JSC AB Holding, and provided that indirect shareholders, such as Aven, were to become direct shareholders of the Russian holding company’ is incorrect and the operation by which the applicant exited the Russian banking sector cannot in any event be characteristic of the criterion referred to.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (h)(ii). The applicant submits that the claim that ‘[Mr] Aven subsequently sold his new direct property rights to a third party, obtaining a considerable payment in Russia’ is incorrect and the operation by which the applicant exited the Russian banking sector cannot in any event be characteristic of the criterion referred to.










13.


Thirteenth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in relation to criterion (d). The applicant submits that the claim that ‘the insurance company AlfaStrakhovanie, … provides insurance to … the bodyguard vehicles of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin’ is incorrect.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3917/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)