Case T-804/25: Action brought on 25 November 2025 – SBK Art v Council
Date: 2025-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, bank, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_202600658EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/658


9.2.2026






Action brought on 25 November 2025 – SBK Art v Council


(Case T-804/25)

(C/2026/658)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SBK Art OOO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky and P. Goeth, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Articles 263, 275(2) and 277 TFEU, declare the inapplicability of:






—


Article 2(1)(f) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, and of Article 3(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (in relation to Sberbank), and










—


Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145, as amended by Council Decision (CSFP) 2023/1094, and of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1089, (in relation to Sberbank), and










—


Article 2(1) final paragraph of Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, and of Article 3(1) final paragraph of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (in relation to the Applicant itself); and














—


either in combination with above, or alternatively, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1895 amending Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 (1) as well as of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1894 implementing Regulation (EU) 269/2014, (2) in so far as those acts concern the Applicant (Listing Entry No. 174);










—


order the Council to pay the costs 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 that the application of EU secondary law in the case at hand infringes the Treaties and the rule of law: the contested listing criteria do not take into account a legitimate aim, they violate Article 215(3) TFEU and the principle of foreseeability.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights: the Council did not notify the applicant of its decision to list it in advance. It did not give the applicant an opportunity to comment and did not review the listing.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s listing is inconclusive and disproportionate.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons: the Council did not provide a legitimate reasoning for the listing of the applicant.






(1)  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 (OJ L, 2025/1895).

(2)  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 (OJ L, 2025/1894).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/658/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)