Case T-449/25: Action brought on 8 July 2025 – Tauber v Council
Date: 2025-07-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Moldova, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, indemnification, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to an effective remedy








C_202505349EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5349


13.10.2025






Action brought on 8 July 2025 – Tauber v Council


(Case T-449/25)

(C/2025/5349)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marina Tauber (Chișinău, Moldavia) (represented by: T. Bontinck and L. Marchal, lawyers, and C. Zatschler, SC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare Decision (CFSP) 2023/891 and Regulation (EU) 2023/888 inapplicable to the applicant, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;










—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/824 of 25 April 2025 in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name at No 3 of the annex to that decision;










—


annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/817 of 25 April 2025 in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name at No 3 of Annex I to that regulation;










—


order the Council to pay the provisional amount of EUR 140 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council to pay the 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, based on a plea of illegality in respect of Decision (CFSP) 2023/891 and Regulation (EU) 2023/888.
Decision (CFSP) 2023/891 and Regulation (EU) 2023/888, which purport to determine the criteria on the basis of which the applicant’s name was included on the list at issue, are unlawful and, therefore, must be declared inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU. In support of that plea of illegality, the applicant raises a first part, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 8 and Article 21(1) TEU and of the principle of proportionality giving rise to a manifest error of assessment as to the true objective of the contested acts in the light of the natural and foreseeable consequences thereof and/or failure to state reasons, and a second part concerning the means used by the Council.










2.


Second plea in law, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the Council’s obligation to state reasons.
The applicant claims infringement of her right to effective judicial protection and the of the Council’s obligation to state reasons on the ground that the evidence provided by the latter does not enable her to defend herself. She submits that the statement of reasons provided by the Council does not enable her to understand how and why those criteria apply to her, that the Council has failed to verify compliance with the applicant’s rights of defence with regard to the ongoing criminal prosecutions and investigations relied upon, and that it is not possible to carry out a judicial review.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging error of assessment on the part of the Council.
The Council made a manifest error of assessment in finding that she had engaged in serious financial misconduct concerning public funds and had exported capital without being authorised to do so, that she had directed and planned violent demonstrations, and that she had hindered or undermined the democratic political process.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and infringement of fundamental rights.
By taking restrictive measures against the applicant, the Council disregarded the principle of proportionality and excessively infringed her fundamental rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5349/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)