Case C-685/25 P: Appeal brought on 27/10/2025 by EV, EW, EY against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22/08/2025 in Case T-446/24, EV and others v Council
Date: 2025-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, jurisdiction, right of action, right to an effective remedy, vessel








C_202600157EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/157


12.1.2026






Appeal brought on 27/10/2025 by EV, EW, EY against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22/08/2025 in Case T-446/24, EV and others v Council


(Case C-685/25 P)

(C/2026/157)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: EV, EW, EY (represented by: H. M. A. over de Linden, advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal and declare the action admissible;










—


annul the contested provisions of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1744 and Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1745 in so far as they concern the Appellants and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the legal assessment of the Court of Justice, and reserve the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on four pleas in law.
The General Court erred in law by holding the Appellants lacked an interest in bringing an action for annulment of Article 3ea(3)(a) of Regulation 833/2014 (1).






—


The prohibition introduced on 24 June 2024 altered the legal position of Appellants and directly affected their ability to operate their vessel.










—


The Appellants meet the criteria of direct and individual concern, as their vessel is the only replica of a historical Russian ship in EU waters.










—


Under the hybridity theory (Case C-358/89 Extramet), a measure of general application may produce individual and direct effects and must be treated as a decision.




The General Court wrongly declared that it lacked jurisdiction to review Article 4ha(3)(a) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP.






—


The Appellants have a direct and individual interest in bringing an action for annulment of the contested acts.










—


The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of jurisdiction under Article 275 TFEU by relying on the judgment in Islentyeva v Council (T-233/22), which was declared inadmissible on grounds irrelevant to the present case.




The General Court wrongly held that the addition of ‘including replicas of historical ships’ was a clarification rather than a substantive amendment.






—


The amendment extended the prohibition to a new category of vessels not previously covered by the international conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW). This constitutes a new prohibition with retroactive effect, contrary to the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity.




By declaring the application inadmissible for lack of competence and interest, the Genera! Court deprived the Appellants of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, leaving them without access to any competent court.






—


The actions of the General Court violated Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/157/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)