General Court, November 29, 2023

In Case T-333/22, German Khan, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers, against Council of the European Union, represented by J. Rurarz, S. Van Overmeire and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents,

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=280226&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3558609

The judgment of the General Court of the European Union concerns an action for annulment brought by Mr German Khan, a businessman of Russian and Israeli nationality, against restrictive measures imposed by the Council of the European Union. Those measures, which are linked to the situation in Ukraine, include the freezing of Mr Khan’s funds. He is accused of providing material or financial support to Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.

Mr Khan seeks the annulment of these restrictive measures on the basis of Article 263 of the TFEU, arguing that there is no legal basis, that the principle of proportionality has been infringed and that the Council has made an error of assessment. He challenges the legitimacy of his inclusion on the sanctions list and argues that the measures do not have a significant impact on Russian decision-makers, but rather harm his own economic and personal situation, as well as the European economy and Ukraine.

ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (première chambre)

29 novembre 2023 (*)

« Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises eu égard aux actions compromettant ou menaçant l’intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté et l’indépendance de l’Ukraine – Gel des fonds – Liste des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques – Inscription et maintien du nom du requérant sur les listes – Notion de “femme ou homme d’affaires influents” – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous g), de la décision 2014/145/PESC – Article 3, paragraphe 1, sous g), du règlement (UE) no 269/2014 – Exception d’illégalité – Obligation de motivation – Erreur d’appréciation »

Leave a Reply