Appeal brought on 2 October 2025 by Yuri Schefler against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 24 July 2025 in Case T-430/24, Schefler v Council

(Case C-650/25 P)

(C/2025/5947)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Yuri Schefler (represented by: P. Blanchetier, avocat)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—	set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 24 July 2025, Schefler v Council (T-430/24, EU:T:2025:770);

—

in accordance with Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, if the appeal is declared well founded, uphold the forms of order sought before the General Court and, accordingly, annul Article 1(6)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2024/1745 of 24 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (1) which amends Article 3d(1) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, (2) and, in the alternative, interpret Article 1(6)(a) of Regulation No 2024/1745 in such a way that it does not apply to the situation of Mr Schefler, as a result of his status as a refugee, his British citizenship and his lack of economic, social or other ties to Russia, who has, moreover, demonstrated his unequivocal desire to renounce his Russian citizenship, the consequences of which are left to the Court of Justice to assess;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The first and only ground of appeal: that ground of appeal consists of three parts, based on errors of law made by the General Court in the order under appeal:

1.	By finding that it did not have jurisdiction to respond to the request for a finding that the contested provision is not applicable to the appellant, on the ground that the appellant seeks a declaratory judgment, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order under appeal;

2.	By finding that the appellant is not individually concerned by the contested measure and does not have locus standi on the basis of the second part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 28 to 35 of the order under appeal;

3.	By finding that the contested provision entails implementing measures and that the appellant does not have locus standi on the basis of the third part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 48 to 78 of the order under appeal.

(1) OJ L, 2024/1745.

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1).