Case T-582/25: Action brought on 25 August 2025 – Yamb v Council
Date: 2025-08-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Switzerland, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, proof, rights of the defence








C_202505360EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5360


13.10.2025






Action brought on 25 August 2025 – Yamb v Council


(Case T-582/25)

(C/2025/5360)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nathalie Yamb (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Branco, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


under Articles 263 and 275 TFEU, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1279 (1) of 26 June 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities, and Council Implementing Regulation (UE) 2025/1278 (2) of 26 June 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities;










—


under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, order the European Union to pay the amount of EUR 500 000 as compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of restrictive measures against her;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, based on a plea of illegality in respect of Decision CFSP 2024/2643 and Regulation (EU) 2024/2642. In support of that plea, the applicant relies, first of all, on the lack of any system of exemptions or derogations for Swiss nationals and residents, which gives rise to a deprivation of fundamental rights and freedoms (including private and family life, freedom of movement, economic freedoms and freedom of expression) on account of the fact that the Swiss Confederation is landlocked in a extraterritorial context which renders the measures punitive, in breach of the Barcelona Convention, inter alia. The applicant relies, next, on infringement of freedom of expression, which requires provisions on compliance with the extensive rights of the defence and right to be heard. Finally, the applicant claims that the categories referred to in the decision are too general and diverse, thereby generating a risk of arbitrariness and discrimination on account of a misuse of self-attributed discretionary powers by the Council.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the statement of reasons is insufficient, inaccurate and contradictory, and prevents any judicial review and any exercise of the rights of the defence.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicant relies on a lack of any prior or subsequent hearing and a failure to respond to her requests.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an insufficient factual basis and manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits that the factual basis rests on hearsay taken from a magazine and bodies funded by foreign powers, and is not such as to form the basis of punitive, so-called restrictive, measures taken against a Swiss national. The applicant adds that no evidence has been adduced in respect either of the facts or the veracity thereof, no direct or indirect link to Russia has been established, and that evidence to rebut such a link has been submitted.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with EU law. The applicant relies on the absence of any link between herself and the background to the adoption of the measures concerned, and the lack of foreseeability linked to the overly general nature of the contested decisions and regulations. The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of proportionality, in the light of the disproportionate nature of the measures adopted and the consequences thereof, and the absence of the expected positive effects in the light of the objectives of general interest set by the Council, since the measures have, on the contrary, been counter-productive. Finally, the applicant argues that the measures have no deterrent effect.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1279 of 26 June 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/1279).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (UE) 2025/1278 of 26 June 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/1278).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5360/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)