—

declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

—

partially annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 (1) of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures with regard to actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns Mr Alexander Vinokurov;

—

partially annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 (2) of 9 March 2022 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 concerns Mr Alexander Vinokurov;

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings;

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies and actions.

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of sufficiently precise and specific reasons in support of the act complained of. In support of that plea, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Council’s reasons refer to sectors of activity, whereas the criteria referred to in Decision CFSP 2022/397 refer only to specific persons. The applicant also alleges that the criterion relating to the provision of substantial revenue is not specified and that the use of the grounds does not correspond to any relevant criteria raised by the Council. Finally, the applicant considers that the ground relating to the support or implementation of actions or policies differs from the relevant criterion, which is ‘material or financial’ support for the Government of the Russian Federation.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the relevant criteria used by it, namely, material or financial support for Russian decision-makers, taking advantage of the Government of the Russian Federation or providing a substantial source of income to that Government.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, on the grounds that the extension of the inclusion criteria now makes it possible to penalise persons with no connection with the situation in Ukraine. Thus, it is argued that the Council refers to the provision of substantial sources of income by certain sectors of activity but does not consider either the applicant’s market share in those sectors or the applicant’s capital holding in the companies mentioned.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s rights of defence and effective judicial protection.