Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62026TN0319

Case T-319/26: Action brought on 26 May 2026 – Trotsenko v Council

OJ C, C/2026/3434, 6.7.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3434/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3434/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series


C/2026/3434

6.7.2026

Action brought on 26 May 2026 – Trotsenko v Council

(Case T-319/26)

(C/2026/3434)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roman Trotsenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Zatschler, SC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/696 of 14 March 2026 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as the name of the applicant was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/695 of 14 March 2026 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 the name of the applicant was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply; (together, ‘the Contested Acts’);

declare, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Article 2(1)(g), Article 1(1)(e) and Article 2b of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1) and Article 3(1)(g) and Article 3(1b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (2), inapplicable to the applicant; and

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

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 that the defendant insufficiently reasoned the Contested Acts in breach of Article 296(2) TFEU insofar as the amended statement of reasons in relation to the applicant is vague, is drafted in openly speculative terms and lacks precision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of measures of general application that formed the basis of the Contested Acts.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging legal errors of assessment in the application of criterion (g).

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging factual errors of assessment in the application of criterion (g).

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council breached the applicant’s rights of defence.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council through the Contested Acts breached the proportionality principle.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council through the Contested Acts breached Article 52(1) of the EU-Russia Partnership Agreement.


(1)   OJ 2014 L 078, p. 16.

(2)   OJ 2014 L 078, p. 6.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3434/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top