Case T-342/25: Action brought on 26 May 2025 – Mikhailov v Council
Date: 2025-05-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, freedom of self-determination, indemnification, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_202504055EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4055


28.7.2025






Action brought on 26 May 2025 – Mikhailov v Council


(Case T-342/25)

(C/2025/4055)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sergey Mikhailov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel)

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, (1) in so far as the name of the applicant was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply;










—


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, (2) in so far as the name of the applicant was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay to the applicant at least EUR 267 200 for non-material damage, increasing by EUR 50 per day, and EUR 10 000 for each subsequent set of maintaining acts until the date of his removal from the lists, and at least EUR 67 257,50 for material damage;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging errors of assessment in respect of, first, errors in application of criterion (a) to the applicant and, second, the failure of the Council to discharge the burden of proof incumbent on it to substantiate the listing of the applicant.






—


The applicant specifically submits that criterion (a), under which he is listed, requires, first, personal conduct by the person listed, and, second, such conduct to take place at the date of the adoption of the contested acts. The applicant submits that the Council did not discharge its burden of proof with respect to both these elements, instead justifying the applicant’s listing by his former role as Director-General of TASS, which the Council itself acknowledged he no longer held for almost two years. Second, the applicant contends that neither the award of the Order of Friendship, nor his inclusion in the personnel reserve in 2009 and 2014, hold any relevance for the present application of criterion (a) to him.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence, as evidenced by the Council’s failure to conduct a proper review of its decision to keep the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures apply.






—


The applicant specifically submits that, first, the Council failed to remove him from the lists at issue in light of the change in his personal circumstances of which the Council was aware and, second, failed to consider and take into account the information provided by the applicant to the Council before the adoption of the contested acts.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of respect for human dignity and proportionality.






—


The applicant submits that the Council’s approach of maintaining his designation, despite acknowledging that he no longer occupied the role of Director- General of TASS for almost two years, unlawfully instrumentalises him in violation of his fundamental right to be acknowledged and respected as an individual. The applicant moreover submits that the contested acts are disproportionate in that they are manifestly inappropriate to the objectives pursued, in particular because there is no reasonable causal link between the listing of the applicant and the stated and intended objectives of the restrictive measures.








In support of the action for compensation, the applicant relies notably on press and media coverage replicating a defamatory depiction of the applicant as being a ‘propagandist’ and ‘warmonger’, as well as specific material damage resulting from his continued designation.


(1)  OJ L, 2025/528.

(2)  OJ L, 2025/527.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4055/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)