ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)

4 September 2025 (*)

( Action for annulment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Reference to the applicant’s name in the identifying information of another person whose name is included on the list – No act adversely affecting a person – Inadmissibility )

In Case T‑86/25,

Maurice Taylor, residing in Vessy (Switzerland), represented by A. Carreri, F. Donati and M. Dal Prà, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by E. Nadbath and N. Rouam, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of R. da Silva Passos, President, N. Półtorak (Rapporteur) and I. Reine, Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

makes the following

Order

1        By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Maurice Taylor, seeks annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/3182 of 16 December 2024 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, 2024/3182) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3183 of 16 December 2024 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, 2024/3183), in so far as those acts (‘the contested acts’) concern him.

 Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action

2        The applicant is an independent consultant who owns a number of companies – the main one being MFT Services SA – offering services to commodities traders, mostly in relation to trade finance matters, with an additional focus on corporate governance services.

3        On 17 March 2014, the Council of the European Union adopted, under Article 29 TEU, Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16). That same day, it adopted, under Article 215 TFEU, Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

4        On 24 February 2022, the President of the Russian Federation announced a military operation in Ukraine and, on the same day, Russian armed forces attacked Ukraine at several locations in the country.

5        On 3 June 2022, the Council decided to adopt Decision (CFSP) 2022/884 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 128) and Regulation (EU) 2022/879 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 53).

6        In the versions applicable on the date of adoption of the contested acts, Article 2(1)(h) of Decision 2014/145 and Article 3(1)(h) of Regulation No 269/2014 provide that all funds and economic resources belonging to natural or legal persons, entities or bodies facilitating infringements of the prohibition against circumvention of EU restrictive measures linked to the situation in Ukraine, or significantly frustrating those measures, are to be frozen.

7        By the contested acts, the Council included several persons, including Mr Niels Troost, on the lists of natural or legal persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures set out in the annex to Decision 2014/145 and in Annex I to Regulation No 269/2014 (‘the lists at issue’), pursuant to Article 2(1)(h) of Decision 2014/145 and Article 3(1)(h) of Regulation No 269/2014.

8        The tables in the annex to Decision 2014/145 and in Annex I to Regulation No 269/2014 contain five columns. On the date of adoption of the contested acts, the second column of entry 1870 gave the name and alias of Mr Troost, while the third column, containing identifying information (‘the disputed statements’), read as follows:

‘Function: Trader in Commodities (oil, grain)

DOB: 27.11.1969

Nationality: Dutch

Gender: male

Associated individuals:

–        Maurice Taylor

…

Associated entities:

…’

9        On 7 February 2025, the Council published corrigenda to the contested acts in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L, 2025/90120 and OJ L, 2025/90119). As a result of the publication of those corrigenda, the applicant’s name is no longer mentioned in the contested acts.

 Forms of order sought

10      The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        annul the contested acts in so far as they include his name on the lists at issue;

–        order the Council to pay the costs.

11      In its plea of inadmissibility raised under Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Council contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action as inadmissible;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

12      The applicant did not submit any observations on the plea of inadmissibility within the prescribed period.

 Law

13      Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. Furthermore, under Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, on application by the defendant, the Court may decide on inadmissibility or lack of competence without going to the substance of the case.

14      In the present case, the Court, taking the view that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file, has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

15      The Council contends that the action is inadmissible. It submits that although it relied on grounds relating to the applicant in the contested acts, those grounds are merely observations intended to support the individual inclusion of Mr Troost’s name on the lists at issue. Therefore, the applicant does not challenge the operative part of those acts, but only part of the grounds thereof which do not produce binding legal effects in relation to him. That means, moreover, that the applicant has no interest in bringing proceedings or standing to bring proceedings against those acts.

16      According to settled case-law, measures the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his or her legal position may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU (see order of 21 October 2024, EuroChem Group v Council, T‑1111/23, not published, EU:T:2024:751, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).

17      Moreover, only the operative part of an act is capable of producing binding legal effects (see order of 21 October 2024, EuroChem Group v Council, T‑1111/23, not published, EU:T:2024:751, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

18      In the present case, the contested acts seek, inter alia, to include or maintain the inclusion of the names of the persons subject to restrictive measures appearing on the lists at issue. In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that Mr Troost’s name is included on the lists at issue but the applicant’s name is not, since he is not ‘listed’, within the meaning of Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145, as amended, in the annex to that decision, or ‘listed’, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended, in Annex I to that regulation. The applicant’s name is mentioned only in the disputed statements, concerning the identifying information for Mr Troost in connection with his inclusion on the lists at issue.

19      In addition, the applicant does not seek annulment of the contested acts in so far as they include Mr Troost’s name on the lists at issue, but only their annulment in so far as they affect the applicant by mentioning his name in the disputed statements.

20      Thus, what the applicant seeks is the deletion of the disputed statements in the identifying information for Mr Troost in the contested acts, which mention the applicant’s name, given that, according to the applicant, those statements entail the taking of restrictive measures against him by portraying him as an individual associated with Mr Troost.

21      The applicant argues that the restrictive measures also apply to natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with the persons meeting the criteria and included on the lists at issue.

22      However, contrary to the applicant’s claims, the disputed statements do not include him on the lists at issue but are intended solely to support the individual restrictive measures taken against Mr Troost, namely the freezing of his funds (see, to that effect, order of 21 October 2024, EuroChem Group v Council, T‑1111/23, not published, EU:T:2024:751, paragraph 52).

23      Thus, the disputed statements cannot in themselves constitute the definition of a legally binding position in relation to the applicant, whose name the Council did not include on the lists at issue with a view to taking restrictive measures against him.

24      Furthermore, notwithstanding the argument put forward by the applicant, the fact that some economic operators may have been swayed by the disputed statements in deciding to sever their business ties with the applicant, or to forgo such ties, does not mean that, for that reason alone, those statements affect the applicant’s legal position, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 16 above (see, to that effect, orders of 7 September 2022, Prigozhin v Council, T‑75/22, not published, EU:T:2022:534, paragraph 26, and of 21 October 2024, EuroChem Group v Council, T‑1111/23, not published, EU:T:2024:751, paragraph 69).

25      Lastly, and in any event, it should be observed that the applicant merely asserts that he lost several mandates and missed out on business opportunities because of the damage caused to his professional reputation as a result of the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue. But he does not, however, demonstrate how those losses were attributable to the contested acts.

26      It follows from the foregoing that the disputed statements do not produce legal effects which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position.

27      Thus, in so far as he seeks partial annulment of the contested acts, the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that there is no act against which an action for annulment may be brought.

 Costs

28      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

29      Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, he must be ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Council.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.      The action is dismissed.

2.      Mr Maurice Taylor shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

Luxembourg, 4 September 2025.

*      Language of the case: English.