Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-252/22, Timchenko v Council

(Case C-702/23 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Bonifassi, avocats, and E. Fedorova, 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 in Case T-252/22, including in so far as it ordered the appellant to bear his 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) 2022/337 of 28 February 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 59, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 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 58, 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), in so far as those acts concern him, 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 holding that the act of ‘supporting, materially or financially’, referred to in the criterion laid down in Articles 1(1)(b) and 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, may be made out where the person subject to sanctions did not to object to the decisions taken by the entity regarded as being directly responsible for financially supporting Russian decision-makers for the purposes of that provision.

The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the act of supporting ‘actions or policies which undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine’ within the meaning of the designation criterion laid down in Articles 1(1)(a) and 2(1)(a) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP was demonstrated by the appellant’s failure to distance himself from the policies and decisions of the entity found to be providing support for the purposes of Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

____________