Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by Elena Petrovna Timchenko against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-361/22, Timchenko v Council

(Case C-703/23 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Elena Petrovna Timchenko (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Bonifassi, avocats, and E. Fedorova, avocate)

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

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 in Case T-361/22, including in so far as it ordered the appellant to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council;

dispose of the action on the merits and annul the contested acts as referred to in paragraph 1 of the application, namely:

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 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 110, p. 55) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 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 110, p. 3);

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), in so far as those acts concern the appellant;

inasmuch as they include and maintain the appellant on the lists annexed to those acts;

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of association provided for in Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/329. The ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law in so far as that interpretation effectively makes it possible to apply that criterion to natural persons based solely on the existence of a family relationship with a designated person.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that, by using the adverb ‘unduly’ in recital 7 of Decision (CFSP) 2022/582, the legislature sought to make it clear that the family member concerned must be aware that the benefit derives from a person meeting one of the criteria justifying their being subject to restrictive measures.

The appellant argues that the General Court failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons and erred in law in so far as it did not establish a link between the restrictive measures imposed on her and the objectives pursued by Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended.

____________