Case T-722/25: Action brought on 13 October 2025 – Nord Stream 2 v Council
Date: 2025-10-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russo-Ukrainian issue, equal treatment, gas pipeline, international sanctions, legal person, maintenance, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, third country, trade restriction








C_202600178EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/178


12.1.2026






Action brought on 13 October 2025 – Nord Stream 2 v Council


(Case T-722/25)

(C/2026/178)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Nord Stream 2 AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: B. Malmendier, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 5af of 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, in so far as it concerns Nord Stream 2;










—


in the alternative, declare the wording ‘and Nord Stream 2’ in Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 void;










—


in the alternative, declare the terms ‘completion’, ‘maintenance’ and ‘maintenance services’ in Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 void;










—


in the alternative, declare the terms ‘maintenance’ and ‘maintenance services’ in Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 void;










—


in the alternative, declare the transaction ban and authorisation requirements of Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 to be invalid, in so far as it concerns






A.


‘maintenance’ within the meaning of Article 5af(1) of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 and ‘regular maintenance services’ within the meaning of Article 5af(3)(e) of that regulation, which are strictly necessary to prevent environmental and safety risks or a negative impact on the fisheries sector; and










B.


the effecting and receiving of payments or recoveries within the meaning of Article 5af(3)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494, that are due or become due under or in connection with court orders, financings, insurance, warrants or any other contracts or agreements in connection with the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipelines; and










C.


settlements, or judicial or arbitration proceedings within the meaning of Article 5af(3)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494;














—


in the alternative, rule on heads of claim (A), (B) and (C) separately.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.



First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment













—


The applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment on the part of the defendant on the ground that the adoption of Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 was based on inaccurate and unverified facts. Contrary to the applicable standards, the defendant failed to conduct any investigation of the facts or failed to do so accurately.










2.



Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the requirement that legislation should be drafted in precise terms and with the principle of legal certainty













—


The applicant alleges a failure to comply with the requirement that legislation must be drafted in precise terms e and with the principle of legal certainty derived from the first sentence of Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental rights. The key terms ‘transaction’ and ‘maintenance’ are not statutorily defined; the provision is not capable of being circumscribed even by way of interpretation and provides no clear guidance as to the required conduct.










3.



Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality













—


The applicant claims that Article 5af is disproportionate in relation to the objective of preventing Russia from generating revenue, as the provision is not suitable for achieving the objectives of the regulation. Russia did not and does not generate any revenue in connection with the Nord Stream 2 pipelines, which were never put into operation. The applicant’s corporate purpose for the coming years is focused solely on security.










4.



Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the freedom to conduct a business













—


The applicant claims that Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 infringes its freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The transaction ban paralyses the applicant in its business activities and exposes it to liability and insolvency risks.










5.



Fifth plea in law, alleging interference with the fundamental right to property













—


The applicant claims that Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 infringes its fundamental right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and creates a situation which can be classified as an unjustified de facto expropriation. The applicant is faced with consequences that are equivalent to those of a formal expropriation. The transaction ban also constitutes an unjustified and far-reaching restriction on the use of property.










6.



Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general right to justice













—


The applicant argues that the transaction ban, in particular Article 5af(3)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494, infringe its general right to justice under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as that provision lays down a prior authorisation requirement for transactions in connection with legal proceedings before courts and tribunals. That is contrary to fundamental principles of the rule of law.










7.



Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equality













—


The applicant submits that Article 5af of Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 gives rise to an unjustified difference in treatment of the applicant given that, when viewed in the light of the rule-of-law principle prohibiting special or ad hoc legislation directed at a specific addressee, that provision amounts to a breach of the principle of equality.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/178/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)