Case T-695/25: Action brought on 10 October 2025 – İlmor Kimya ve Tekstil v Council
Date: 2025-10-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202600113EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/113


5.1.2026






Action brought on 10 October 2025 – İlmor Kimya ve Tekstil v Council


(Case T-695/25)

(C/2026/113)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: İlmor Kimya ve Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Istanbul, Türkiye) (represented by: J.-M. Salva and A. Pous, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible in its entirety;










—


declare the present application well founded in its entirety;










—


annul, in part, Decision 2025/1495/CFSP of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine and Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, by removing the applicant’s name from Annex IV of Regulation 833/2014,










—


in the alternative, annul, in their entirety, Decision 2025/1495/CFSP of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine and Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine.










—


order the Council to pay EUR 100 000 in damages as compensation for the non-material and material losses suffered as a result of the applicant’s inclusion in the list in Annex IV;










—


order the Council to pay all the costs and, in particular, all the charges, fees and disbursements incurred by the applicant for its defence before the General Court.





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 breach of the rights of the defence guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






—


The applicant submits that the Council breached the applicant’s right to sound administration of justice by failing to notify it personally of its addition to the list of entities subject to sanctions in Annex IV. This prevented the applicant from presenting its arguments before its inclusion in the list of entities subject to sanctions.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.






—


The applicant submits that the Council failed to respect the applicant’s rights of defence. The Council based its decision on partially erroneous transactions taken from a database that is not accessible to the public.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error in assessment.






—


The applicant submits that the Council erred in its assessment in finding that the applicant’s sales of DETA were intentionally intended for the Russian military complex. The applicant was not aware of the military properties of the product concerned and was not aware of its resale to a person belonging to the military complex at the time of sale.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality.






—


The applicant argues that the Council infringed the principle of proportionality by adding the applicant’s name to the list of entities subject to sanctions in Annex IV. The company, having become aware of the risks of circumvention, complied with European law even though it was not required to do so. Inclusion on the list is no longer relevant in that sense.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to freedom to conduct a business.






—


The applicant argues that its inclusion in Annex IV to Regulation 833/2014 infringes its freedom to conduct a business by damaging its reputation and preventing it from carrying out certain commercial transactions inherent in its activity. The applicant claims that the sanctions have a detrimental effect that goes beyond their scope, causing it financial and non-material damage.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/113/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)