—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/696 (1) of 14 March 2026 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, 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) 2026/695 (2) of 14 March 2026 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, 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’);

—

order compensation in the present amount of EUR 134 558 for the material damage incurred by the applicant resulting from the need to engage legal representatives to commence the present legal proceedings to vindicate her rights to the extent that these legal costs are not recoverable by way of a costs order and of at least EUR 1 903 000 for the damage caused to the applicant’s reputation and for other forms of non-material damage caused to the applicant, increasing by EUR 1,000 per day, as well as interest; and

—

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council breached its obligation to state reasons as laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU insofar as the statement of reasons concerning the applicant does not allow her to adequately ascertain the reasons underpinning the Contested Acts.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed errors of law and of factual assessment when applying criterion (a) and the association criterion set in Article 1(1) and 2(1) of Decision 2014/145 as amended by Council Decision 2022/329 (3) and in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 269/2014 as amended Council Regulation No 2022/330 (4) to the applicant. The second plea in law is divided into five parts:

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council breached the applicant’s rights of defence. This third plea in law is divided into three parts:

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council breached the applicant’s right to human dignity as well as her and her children’s right to respect for their family life given that the Council’s intent through the Contested Acts was to engage in ‘gesture politics’ and to abuse her as a symbol and that the Contested Acts are manifestly inappropriate to the achievement of the objectives pursued by Decision 2014/145 and Regulation 269/2014.