Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62024CN0572

Case C-572/24 P: Appeal brought on 23 August 2024 by State Development Corporation VEB.RF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 12 June 2024 in Case T-288/22, State Development Corporation VEB.RF v Council

OJ C, C/2024/6082, 21.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6082/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/2024/6082/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/6082

21.10.2024

Appeal brought on 23 August 2024 by State Development Corporation ‘VEB.RF’ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 12 June 2024 in Case T-288/22, State Development Corporation VEB.RF v Council

(Case C-572/24 P)

(C/2024/6082)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: State Development Corporation ‘VEB.RF’ (represented by: J.L. Iriarte Ángel, L. Rodríguez Jiménez, F. Rodríguez González and L.M. García López, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2024 in Case T-288/22.

2.

give final judgment in the proceedings by granting the form of order sought by the applicant, now the appellant, at first instance; that is to say, annul,

in the first place,

—

(i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 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, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; (2)

—

(ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022  (3) amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP …, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022  (4) implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 …;

—

(iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023  (5) amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP …, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023  (6) implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 …; and

—

(iv) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023  (7) amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP …, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023  (8) implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 …, in so far as those acts concern the appellant.

in the second place,

—

(i) Article 1e of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (9) as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022  (10) …, in conjunction with Annex VIII to that decision, and Article 5h of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (11) as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022  (12) …, in conjunction with Annex XIV to that regulation;

—

(ii) Article 1e of Decision 2014/512, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1313 of 26 July 2022  (13) …, in conjunction with Annex VIII to that decision, and Article 5h of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1269 of 21 July 2022  (14) …, in conjunction with Annex XIV to that regulation;

—

(iii) Article 1e of Decision 2014/512, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/191 of 27 January 2023  (15) …, in conjunction with Annex VIII to that decision, and Article 5h of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2474 of 16 December 2022  (16) …, in conjunction with Annex XIV to that regulation; and

—

(iv) Article 1e of Decision 2014/512, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1517 of 20 July 2023  (17) …, in conjunction with Annex VIII to that decision, and Article 5h of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1214 of 23 June 2023  (18) …, in conjunction with Annex XIV to that regulation, in so far as all of those acts concern the appellant.

3.

in the alternative, set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the General Court.

4.

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on five grounds of appeal:

First ground of appeal: error of law in that the judgment erroneously states that the Council fulfilled its obligation to state reasons.

Second ground of appeal: error of law in that the judgment erroneously states that the Council did not make an error of assessment, a finding which the General Court reaches by manifestly distorting the facts.

Third ground of appeal: error of law in that the judgment erroneously states that there was no infringement of the appellant’s right to property read in conjunction with the principle of proportionality.

Fourth ground of appeal: error of law in that the judgment erroneously states that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Fifth ground of appeal: error of law in that the judgment erroneously states that there was no infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and there was no misuse of powers.

(1)   OJ L 42I, 23.2.2022, pp. 98–108.

(2)   OJ L 42I, 23.2.2022, pp. 3–14.

(3)   OJ L 239, 15.9.2022, pp. 149–296.

(4)   OJ L 239, 15.9.2022, pp. 1–148.

(5)   OJ L 75I, 14.3.2023, pp. 134–268.

(6)   OJ L 75I, 14.3.2023, pp. 1–133.

(7)   OJ L 226, 14.9.2023, pp. 104–202.

(8)   OJ L 226, 14.09.2023, pp. 3–101.

(9)   OJ L 229, 31.07.2014, pp. 13–17.

(10)   OJ L 63, 2.03.2022, pp. 5–7.

(11)   OJ L 229, 31.07.2014, pp. 1–11.

(12)   OJ L 63, 2.03.2022, pp. 1–4.

(13)   OJ L 198, 27.7.2022, p. 17.

(14)   OJ L 193, 21.7.2022, pp. 1–132.

(15)   OJ L 26, 30.1.2023, pp. 44–45.

(16)   OJ L 322I, 16.12.2022, pp. 1–314.

(17)   OJ L 184, 21.07.2023, pp. 40–40.

(18)   OJ L 159I, 23.6.2023, pp. 1–329.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6082/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

Top