Case T-521/25: Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Neculiti v Council
Date: 2025-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202504825EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4825


8.9.2025






Action brought on 30 July 2025 – Neculiti v Council


(Case T-521/25)

(C/2025/4825)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Iurie Neculiti (Bender, Moldavia) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis and C. Cauvin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities, (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/965 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities, (2) insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


order the Council of the European Union to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for its defence.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by failing to provide timely access to the evidence underpinning the listing, thereby depriving the applicant of a fair opportunity to be heard and violating his procedural rights.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant satisfies the relevant criteria laid down in Articles 2(1)(a)(iv) and (v), and 2(1)(b) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 (3) and in the corresponding Articles 2(3)(a)(iv) and (v), and 2(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2024/2642. (4)











3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to meet the burden of proof, in breach of its obligation to base listings on a sufficiently solid factual basis and to adduce evidence that prima facie establishes that the applicant meets the relevant criteria.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by failing to disclose in a clear and specific manner the facts and legal considerations underpinning the designation, thus preventing the applicant from understanding the justification for the measures and the Court from exercising effective review.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of proportionality under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by imposing restrictive measures that are neither necessary nor appropriate to achieve the stated objectives, and by failing to consider less intrusive and better-suited alternatives, despite the severe and unjustified consequences caused to the applicant.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966 of 20 May 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/966).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/965 of 20 May 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/965).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 of 8October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2024/2643).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 of 8 October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilizing activities (OJ L, 2024/2642).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4825/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)