Case C-452/25 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2025 by SBK Art OOO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2025 in Case T-102/23, SBK Art v Council
Date: 2025-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, legal person, principle of legal certainty, territorial dispute








C_202504589EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4589


25.8.2025






Appeal brought on 9 July 2025 by SBK Art OOO against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2025 in Case T-102/23, SBK Art v Council


(Case C-452/25 P)

(C/2025/4589)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: SBK Art OOO (represented by: G. Lansky and P. Goeth, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Republic of Croatia, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


give final judgment in the matter and annul:






—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2477 of 16 December 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2476 of 16 December 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 (2);










—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (3) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (4);










—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (5) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (6);










—


Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (8),




in so far as all of those acts concern the appellant and order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;










—


or, alternatively to the point two above, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law and reserve the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law when it held in paragraphs 67 to 89 that the criterion of association, as provided by Article 2(1) and, in essence, Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329 (9), and by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 269/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (10) (the ‘association criterion’) complies with the legal principles of foreseeability and legal certainty, as enshrined in the Treaties, and thus does not have to be disapplied under Article 277 TFEU.
Second, the General Court erred in law when it held in paragraphs 106 to 132 that the Council acted lawfully when it failed to consult with the appellant prior to it being (re)listed.
Third, the General Court erred in law when it held in paragraphs 133 to 205 that the Council had not made an error of assessment, when it qualified the appellant as associated with Sberbank within the meaning of the association criterion.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law when it held in paragraphs 206 to 221 that the Council did not infringe the appellant’s fundamental rights. Notably, the General Court erred when it held that the provisions upon which the restrictive measures were imposed (in particular the association criterion) amounted to ‘law’ in a substantive sense, and that the restrictive measures imposed were proportionate.


(1)  
            OJ 2022 L 322 I, p. 466.

(2)  
            OJ 2022 L 322 I, p. 318.

(3)  
            OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134.

(4)  
            OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1.

(5)  
            OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104.

(6)  
            OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3.

(7)  OJ L 2024/847.

(8)  OJ L 2024/849.

(9)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 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 (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(10)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4589/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)