This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62025CN0231
Case C-231/25 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-748/22, Kantor v Council
Case C-231/25 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-748/22, Kantor v Council
Case C-231/25 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-748/22, Kantor v Council
OJ C, C/2025/2521, 12.5.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2521/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)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2025/2521 |
12.5.2025 |
Appeal brought on 24 March 2025 by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2025 in Case T-748/22, Kantor v Council
(Case C-231/25 P)
(C/2025/2521)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor (represented by: T. Bontinck, M. Brésart and F. Patuelli, avocats)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (First Chamber) of 15 January 2025, T-748/22, including in so far as it ordered the appellant to pay the costs; |
|
— |
refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the annulment of the contested decisions in so far as they maintain the appellant in the lists annexed to those decisions, namely:
|
|
— |
order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal:
First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘businessperson’ (first part), of the concept of ‘activity’ (second part) and of the concept of ‘leading’ (third part) in the light of the various interpretative approaches in EU law.
Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality set out in Article 5(4) TEU, in the General Court’s analysis concerning the proportionality of the individual measures adopted vis-à-vis the appellant.
Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rules on the standard of proof (first part) and of the rules on the burden of proof and the taking of evidence (second part) as regards the examination by the General Court of the Council’s obligation to adduce credible evidence and to bring a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent.
Fourth ground of appeal, alleging distortion of evidence by the General Court.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2521/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)