Summary:
Original Link:
Original Article:
Case C-399/25 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2025 by Elena Petrovna Timchenko against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 April 2025 in Case T-298/23 Elena Petrovna Timchenko v Council of the European Union.
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Elena Petrovna Timchenko (represented by: S. Bonifassi, T. Bontinck, E. Federova and J. Goffin, avocats)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union delivered on 2 April 2025 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-298/23;
— consequently, grant the forms of order sought by the appellant before the General Court of the European Union, namely:
under Article 263 TFUE, annulment of Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 and of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571,
under Article 268 TFEU, compensation in respect of the non-material harm that the appellant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of those acts;
— Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The appellant raises four grounds in support of her appeal.
1) In the first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of association as provided for in Article 1(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, by interpreting, arbitrarily and unacceptably broadly, the association criterion in connection with the concept of common interests, and in breach of its obligation to state reasons.
2) In the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law and infringed its obligation to state reasons, in so far as it failed to establish any link between the restrictive measures imposed on the appellant and the objectives pursued by Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended.
3) In the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in ruling that the Council could, under Article 29 TEU, restrict the freedom of movement of an EU citizen.
4) In the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law, breached the principle of proportionality and infringed its obligation to state reasons by ruling that the restriction on the appellant’s freedom of movement was proportionate, when the Council had failed to identify any personal conduct on the part of the appellant representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of the Member States of the European Union, and when that restriction did not respect the essence of the appellant’s right.