Action brought on 18 May 2023 – Rosbank v Council
(Case T-270/23)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Rosbank PAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Genko, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
declare that its application for annulment is admissible and well-founded and consequently:
annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2023 by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/429 (OJ 2023 L 59 I, p. 278) in that it adds the applicant to the list of sanctioned entities under entry number 199;
annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2023 by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/432 (OJ 2023 L 59 I, p. 437) in that it adds that applicant to the list of sanctioned entities under entry number 199;
annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 as amended on 25 February 2022 by Regulation (EU) 2022/330 (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1) by the addition of a new criterion making it possible to impose sanctions on ‘leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation’, in so far as it affects the applicant;
annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1) by the addition of a new criterion making it possible to impose sanctions on ‘leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation …’, in so far as it affects the applicant;
annul the maintaining acts in so far as they affect the applicant;
order the Council to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons. The Council put forward no individual, specific and concrete grounds allowing it to classify the applicant according to the criterion applied to it, namely the criterion making it possible to impose sanctions on ‘entities … involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation’.
Second plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant submits that the statement of reasons contains erroneous assertions and that the evidence file does not establish that there were facts justifying the imposition of sanctions. Next, there is no evidence of a substantial contribution to the resources of the government of the Russian Federation. Finally, the Conseil relied on outdated facts.
Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers. The Council’s evidence file shows that that measure sanctions a natural person who is a third party and, more generally, that the measure is intended to sanction Russian assets in Europe and not the applicant.
Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality since the sanction has a disproportionate effect on third parties and makes it impossible to achieve the objectives of Regulation No 269/2014.
Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination since the sanction has a disproportionate effect on third parties and makes it impossible to achieve the objectives of Regulation No 269/2014.
Sixth plea in law, alleging an undue prejudice to fundamental rights, in particular the right to property.
Seventh plea in law, alleging that it was possible to adopt other measures which were less restrictive than the measures at issue.
Eighth plea in law, based on an indirect plea of illegality, regarding the criterion concerning entities added to Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 269/2014. The applicant claims that there is no sufficient link between the criterion and the objective pursued and that there has been an infringement of the fundamental principles of the Union, in particular the principle of equality and non-discrimination.
____________