Case T-679/25: Action brought on 2 October 2025 – Expobank v Council
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, bank, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, right to property, rights of the defence








C_202505986EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5986


17.11.2025






Action brought on 2 October 2025 – Expobank v Council


(Case T-679/25)

(C/2025/5986)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Expobank JCS (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: L. Specht, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1495 of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (1) in so far as this act concerns applicant; and










—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as this act concerns applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.





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 a manifest error in assessment.






—


The Council’s has not presented evidence to support its assertions;










—


The criteria applied to justify imposing restrictive measures upon certain Russian financial institutions do not apply to the applicant’s banking operations;










—


Council’s reliance on the fact that the applicant has been listed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (‘OFAC’) of the US Department of the Treasury is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof;














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons (Article 296(2) TFEU).






—


The applicant has not been notified individually about the imposition of sanctions and the Council has not disclosed any specific reasoning for imposing the sanctions.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection.










4.


Fourth plea in law: alleging violation of the principle of proportionality of the restrictive measures at issue.










5.


Fifth plea in law: alleging infringement of the freedom to conduct a business and the right to property.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1495 of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/1495).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/1494).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5986/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)