Case C-530/25 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2025 by German Khan against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2025 in Case T-289/23, Khan v Council
Date: 2025-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, access to EU information, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, rights of the defence








C_202505078EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5078


29.9.2025






Appeal brought on 3 August 2025 by German Khan against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2025 in Case T-289/23, Khan v Council


(Case C-530/25 P)

(C/2025/5078)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: German Khan (represented by: T. Marembert, A. Bass, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2025, Khan v Council (T-289/23; ‘the judgment under appeal’) ECLI:EU:T:2025:560);










—


accordingly, dispose of the action on the merits and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023, (2) in so far as they concern the appellant; annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023
                   (3) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023, (4) in so far as they concern the appellant; annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024
                   (5) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024, (6) in so far as they concern the appellant; and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024
                   (7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024
                   (8) in so far as they concern the appellant;










—


in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order, in any event, the Council to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on the following ten grounds:
First ground – Breach of the rights of the defence and of Articles 41(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the right to have access to one’s file); infringement of essential procedural requirements, of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union due to an insufficient statement of reasons; distortion of the evidence – The judgment under appeal infringed the provisions at issue by refusing to grant the measure of organisation of the procedure applied for by the appellant;
Second ground – Breach of the duty of periodic review, infringement of Article 3(3) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP (9) and Article 14(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2014/269 (10) – The judgment under appeal infringed the provisions and breached the principle at issue by finding that the Council had correctly re-examined the appellant’s situation in the present case;
Third ground – Breach of the duty of periodic review, infringement of Article 3(3) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and of Article 14(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2014/269; infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union due to an insufficient statement of reasons – The judgment under appeal infringed the provisions and breached the principles at issue by finding that the Council had fulfilled the obligation to establish an impact assessment of the measures targeting the appellant;
Fourth ground – Breach of the principle of proportionality – The judgment under appeal breached the principle at issue by refusing to take into account the Council’s judicial admission recognising the lack of impact of the restrictive measures targeting Mr. Khan;
Fifth ground – Infringement of Articles 29 TEU and 215(2) TFEU; lack of legal basis – The judgment under appeal erred in finding that the initial criterion (g) (11) makes it possible to penalise categories of persons without a sufficient link to the regime or events on which the European Union intends to exert pressure;
Sixth ground – Infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union due to an insufficient statement of reasons; distortion of the evidence; infringement of the initial criterion (g) – The judgment under appeal infringed the provisions at issue by finding that the Russian banking sector provided substantial revenues to the Russian Government in 2023 in the light of a document allegedly establishing a classification of significant taxpayers in 2020 and the annual revenue of that sector between 2014 and 2021;
Seventh ground – Infringement of the amended criterion (g), (12) first part; alternatively, infringement of Articles 29 TEU and 215(2) TFEU and lack of legal basis – The judgment under appeal incorrectly found that the amended criterion (g) relating to ‘influential businessmen’ was to be interpreted in the same way as the initial criterion (g);
Eighth ground – Infringement of essential procedural requirements, of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union due to an insufficient statement of reasons distorting the plea raised by the appellant – The judgment under appeal improperly categorised the twelfth plea as a plea of illegality, which invalidates the concise statement of reasons under which that plea was rejected;
Ninth ground – Infringement of Article 263 TFEU; infringement of the initial criterion (g) and the amended criterion (g) – The General Court substituted its reasons for those of the Council by finding that the reasons relied on did not allege that the appellant had acted as a de facto manager of the companies but ‘maintained links’ with those companies on the grounds that he managed ‘assets’ belonging to them. In any event, the concept of ‘businessmen’ within the meaning of the initial criterion (g) and the amended criterion (g) cannot apply to a person whom the General Court recognises as having neither the status of manager nor that of shareholder of companies;
Tenth ground – Infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union due to an insufficient or non-existent statement of reasons; infringement of amended criterion (g) – The judgment under appeal did not establish the perpetuation of the allegation that the appellant had ‘continued to manage’ assets based in Russia at the time of the renewals of September 2023, March 2024 and September 2024.


(1)  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 (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134).

(2)  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 (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1).

(3)  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 (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104).

(4)  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 (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3).

(5)  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 (OJ L, 2024/847).

(6)  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 (OJ L, 2024/849).

(7)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/2456).

(8)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 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 (OJ L, 2024/2455).

(9)  Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16).

(10)  Council Implementing Decision 2014/269/EU of 6 May 2014 amending Council Decision 2009/935/JHA determining the list of third States and organisations with which Europol shall conclude agreements (OJ 2014 L 138, p. 104).

(11)  Provided for in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329, and in Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended by Regulation 2022/330.

(12)  Provided for in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2023/1094, and in Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended by Regulation 2023/1089.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5078/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)