—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) 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) No 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024 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, (2) 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’) and

—

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed errors of assessment in the application of the ‘immediate family member criterion’, laid down in the second prong of Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision (EU) 2014/145/CFSP, as amended, and the second prong of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended, (hereafter, ‘the second prong of the criterion (g)’) to the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the second prong of the criterion (g). The second plea in law is divided into five parts: First part, alleging that the second prong of the criterion (g) lacks a legal basis in Article 215 TFEU. Second part, alleging that the first prong of the criterion (g) is illegal, to which the second prong is inseparably attached making it illegal a fortiori. Third part, alleging that the second prong of the criterion (g) infringes the right to family life as protected by Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of proportionality. Fourth part, alleging that the second prong of the criterion (g) is manifestly inappropriate to achieve the goals pursued and is, as such, disproportionate. Fifth part, alleging that the second prong of criterion (g) infringes the principle of legal certainty, to the extent that the defendant purports to give the notion of ‘immediate family member’ a wider meaning than that to be deduced from the normal interpretation of those terms. To this end, a restrictive interpretation of the notion of ‘immediate family member’ in conformity with the above principles is required.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that with the adoption of the contested acts, in so far as they concern the applicant, the defendant violated the obligation to state reasons.