Appeal brought on 20 June 2024 by the Republic of Latvia against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2024 in Case T-304/22 Fridman v Council

(Case C-441/24 P)

(C/2024/5087)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Pommere, J. Davidoviča, S. Zābele and M. E. Ivaskis, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Mikhail Fridman, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal in support of its appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law by failing to comply with its established case-law to the effect that ‘the Court’s assessment must be carried out by examining the Council’s evidence not in isolation but in its context’.

Second, the General Court erred in law by distorting the evidence submitted by the Council that was the basis for including Mikhail Fridman on the lists of restrictive measures.

Third, the General Court erred in law in the application of the criterion set out in Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145 (1) because it erred in law in the interpretation and application of its case-law (judgment of 30 November 2016, Rotenberg v Council, T-720/14, EU:T:2016:689), and in the interpretation of the terms ‘benefitting from’ in Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145.

Fourth, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the case-law in paragraphs 77-78 of its judgment of 27 April 2022, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council, T-108/21, EU:T:2022:253.

(1)  Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16).