—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 July 2025, OT v Council (T-1095/23, ECLI:EU:T:2025:744), in accordance with Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104), in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3), in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/847), in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L, 2024/849), in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—

in accordance with Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure, if the appeal is declared well founded, uphold the forms of order sought before the General Court and, as a consequence, order the Council to remove the appellant’s name from the annexes to Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767, to Implementing Regulation 2023/1765, to Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 and to Implementing Regulation 2024/849;

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the appellant.

1.

First part: By finding that it lacks jurisdiction to order the Council to remove names from the lists at issue where the measures affecting the persons concerned have been annulled by a judgment, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment under appeal.

2.

Second part: By acknowledging in paragraphs 57 and 191 of the judgment under appeal, first, that the various expressions (‘main shareholder’, ‘major shareholder’ (in French, ‘grand actionnaire’) and ‘major shareholder’ (in French ‘actionnaire majeur’)) were equivalent and, second, that the reasons for inclusion had not been substantially amended, without drawing the appropriate legal conclusions, the General Court erred in law.

3.

Third part: By stating that the Council’s late sending of file WK 10524/2023 REV 1 had not infringed the appellant’s rights of the defence, while finding that it constituted an irregularity, the General Court used contradictory reasoning and erred in law in paragraphs 62, 65, 69, 73 and 77 of the judgment under appeal.

4.

Fourth part: By requiring the appellant and/or a third party to produce evidence proving a negative in respect of the share transfer, while rejecting the exhibits produced by the appellant and without specifying the legal basis for that intrusion into the privacy of the contractual sphere, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 134, 137, 153, 165 and 195 of the judgment under appeal.

5.

First part: By relying on outdated sources and omitting decisive facts relating to the appellant’s situation, the General Court distorted the facts in paragraphs 98, 104, 105, 127 and 203 of the judgment under appeal.

6.

Second part: By relying on unsubstantiated presumptions, documents of which the probative value has been exaggerated and on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law, the General Court distorted the facts concerning the transfer of the appellant’s shares in paragraphs 154, 158 and 159 of the judgment under appeal.

7.

Third part: By consistently underestimating the probative value of the appellant’s exhibits and rejecting evidence demonstrating the absence of influence or economic activity, the General Court distorted the facts in paragraphs 147, 148, 163, 171 and 172 of the judgment under appeal.

8.

Fourth part: By equating any capital holding with performance of a substantial economic activity and ignoring the evidence establishing that the appellant had no effective role at Rosvodokanal, the General Court distorted the facts in paragraph 180 of the judgment under appeal.