EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62023CN0696

Case C-696/23 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-270/22, Pumpyanskiy v Council

OJ C, C/2024/1397, 19.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1397/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/2024/1397/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

Series C


C/2024/1397

19.2.2024

Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-270/22, Pumpyanskiy v Council

(Case C-696/23 P)

(C/2024/1397)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger and E. Steiner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party/parties 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 6 September 2023 in Case C-270/22;

give final judgment in the matter and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 (1) of 9 March 2022 amending Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 (2) of 9 March 2022 implementing Council 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 they concern the Appellant, and to order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;

or, alternatively to claim number two, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in accordance with the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law and reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law when it held that the Council had not made an error of assessment, when it qualified the Appellant a ‘leading businessperson […] involved in economic sectors providing substantial revenues to the Government of the Russian Federation’ within the meaning of Art. 2(1)(g) and, in essence, Art. 1(1)(e) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 (3) of 25 February 2022 and of Art. 3(1)(g) of the Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (4) of 25 February 2022.

The General Court erred in law when it held that the Council did not infringe the Appellant’s fundamental rights. Notably, the General court erred when it held that the law upon which the restrictive measures were imposed does not infringe the principle of legal certainty, that the restrictive measures imposed respect the essence of the fundamental rights of the Appellant, and that they are proportionate.


(1)   OJ 2022, L 80, p. 31.

(2)   OJ 2022, L 80, p. 1.

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 50, p. 1).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 51, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1397/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top