Case T-693/25: Action brought on 9 October 2025 –Tokareva v Council
Date: 2025-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, enforcement of ruling, freezing of assets, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, right to an effective remedy, right to property








C_202506193EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6193


24.11.2025






Action brought on 9 October 2025 –Tokareva v Council


(Case T-693/25)

(C/2025/6193)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Maya Tokareva (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart, J. Goffin and F. Patuelli, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1895 of 12 September 2025 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list annexed to that decision;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1894 of 12 September 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to that decision;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment.










—


The applicant claims that, since the elements of fact and law on which the contested acts are based are identical to those in the maintaining acts that preceded them and that were annulled by the Court on three occasions (Cases T-269/24, T-744/22 and T-295/25), the findings made by the Court in Case T-295/25 are applicable mutatis mutandis to the contested acts. Consequently, those acts are the result of the same error of assessment by the Council that justified the annulment of the previous acts by the judgments and the order of the Court in the three cases referred to.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the order made by the Court in Case T-295/25 and infringement of the principle of good administration.










—


The applicant argues that the Council failed to comply with the decisions of the Court in Cases T-269/24, T-744/22 and T-295/25, which had annulled the preceding maintaining acts. Instead, the Council reintroduced identical maintaining acts without providing any new or updated ground or evidence as compared with those subject to the proceedings in Cases T-295/25, T-269/24 and T-744/22. Despite the applicant’s formal notice of 4 September 2025, the Council continues in its refusal to correct the errors identified by the Court. The applicant submits that the failure to comply with the order of 2 September 2025 constitutes a wrongful act demonstrating an abuse of powers committed repeatedly by the Council since 11 September 2024, the date of the judgment annulling preceding acts in Case T-744/22.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.










—


The applicant criticises the Council for infringing the principle of proportionality by adopting restrictive measures that are neither appropriate nor necessary. She states that, by its attitude and the refusal to give any effect to the Court’s decisions concerning her, the Council demonstrates that it intends to maintain unjustified restrictive measures against the applicant indefinitely, thereby infringing the principle of proportionality. Moreover, those measures have no practical effect on the Russian authorities or the objectives of Decision 2014/145/CFSP since the applicant has no connection with the conflict in Ukraine.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging undue interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights.










—


The restrictive measures adopted against the applicant infringe her fundamental rights. As a result of the contested acts, she is at risk of permanently losing her Cypriot nationality. The contested acts prevent the applicant from being present at her property in Croatia and freeze her assets, thereby infringing her right to property. The contested acts prevent the applicant from having her name removed from the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures despite both the decisions of the Court annulling preceding maintaining acts, which undermines her right to effective judicial protection.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6193/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)