Appeal brought on 16 September 2023 by Tigran Khudaverdyan against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 6 September 2023 in Case T-335/22

(Case C-704/23 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Tigran Khudaverdyan (represented by: F. Bélot and T. Bontinck, avocats, and M. Brésart, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2023, T-335/22, including in so far as it ordered the appellant to bear his own costs and to pay those of the Council;

dispose of the action on the merits and annul the contested decisions in so far as they include and maintain the appellant on the lists annexed to those acts, namely:

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87 I, p. 44) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 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 2022 L 87 I, p. 1);

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 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 2022 L 239, p. 1);

Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 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 75 I, p. 134) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 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 75, p. 1);

order, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the non-material damage which he has suffered as a result of the adoption of those acts;

order the Council to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the condition set out in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning the concept of a leading businessperson (i) and as regards the concept of a substantial source of revenue to the Government (ii). The General Court also erred in law in its assessment of the link between the objectives pursued by the restrictive measures and the applicant’s individual conduct (iii).

The appellant submits that the General Court misunderstood the scope of its power of judicial review by substituting its own assessment and its own reasoning for those set out in the statement of reasons in the contested decisions adopted by the Council.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by incorrectly assessing the plea before the General Court concerning a breach of the principle of proportionality in that it confused the question of whether the contested decisions were appropriate to achieve the objectives pursued with that of whether they are proportionate in the strict sense.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the principle of equality and of non-discrimination by limiting its examination to the wording of the condition in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP without analysing whether, in practice, the application of that condition was not indicative of discrimination. Furthermore, since the General confused the question of whether the contested decisions were appropriate to achieve the objectives pursued with that of whether they are proportionate in the strict sense (third ground of appeal), the appellant also submits in his fourth ground of appeal that the General Court’s reasoning with regard to the appellant’s fundamental rights, to which it refers in its examination of proportionality, is also vitiated by an error of law.

____________