—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1895 (1) of 12 September 2025, in so far as it makes Decision (CFSP) 2014/145, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/392 of 9 March 2022, which initially included the applicant’s name in the annex to Decision (CFSP) 2014/145, applicable until 15 March 2026;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1894 (2) of 12 September 2025 in so far as it amends Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 such that that the applicant’s name is maintained on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures;

—

order the Council to pay EUR 500 000 on a provisional basis in respect of the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant;

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

1.

First plea, alleging breach of the right to effective judicial protection and breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant argues that the Council did not notify him of its intention to renew the restrictive measures before those measures were adopted. Furthermore, according to the applicant, no updated information was communicated by the Council to justify the renewal of the restrictive measures. Lastly, the applicant argues that the Council has persistently failed to take into account the elements and observations submitted by him, with the result that it has infringed its obligation to re-examine and re-assess decisions and the applicant’s right to be heard.

2.

Second plea, alleging an error of assessment. The applicant argues that the evidence relied on by the Council to maintain him on the list is completely outdated and insufficient, and in no way serves to establish that he is a leading businessperson operating in Russia or that he is involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.

3.

Third plea, alleging a breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant argues that the restrictive measures imposed on him amount to discrimination against him. In addition, by including the applicant on the list, the Council breached the principle of proportionality. Therefore, according to the applicant, those interferences cannot be regarded as legitimate for the purposes of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.

Fourth plea, based on an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, on the grounds that the restrictive measures undermine his fundamental individual rights, including the right to property, the right to freely conduct a business and the right to respect for private and family life.