Pumpyanskaya v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-1108/23 (02 April 2025)
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >>
Pumpyanskaya v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-1108/23 (02 April 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2025/T110823.html Cite as:
EU:T:2025:348,
ECLI:EU:T:2025:348,
[2025] EUECJ T-1108/23
( Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant's name on the lists - Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014/145/CFSP - Concept of 'benefit received from a leading businessperson operating in Russia' - Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145 - Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 - Error of assessment )
In Case T‑1108/23,
Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya, residing in Ekaterinburg (Russia), represented by G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger and E. Steiner, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by B. Driessen, acting as Agent,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of R. Mastroianni, President, M. Brkan and T. Tóth (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By her action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Ms Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya, seeks annulment (i) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 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 2023 L 226, p. 3) (together, 'the third set of maintaining acts'), (ii) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 2024/847) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 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 L 2024/849) (together, 'the fourth set of maintaining acts'), and (iii) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 2024/2456) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024 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 L 2024/2455) (together, 'the fifth set of maintaining acts'), in so far as those acts (together, 'the contested acts'), maintain her name on the lists annexed to those acts.
Background to the dispute
2 The present case has been brought in connection with the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
4 On 17 March 2014, on the basis of Article 29 TEU, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision 2014/145 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16).
5 On the same date, on the basis of Article 215(2) TFEU, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).
6 On 25 February 2022, in view of the gravity of the situation in Ukraine, the Council adopted, first, Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1) and, second, Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1), in order in particular to amend the criteria on the basis of which natural or legal persons, entities or bodies could be subject to the restrictive measures at issue.
7 Article 2(1) and (2) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329, is worded as follows:
'1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by:
…
(g) 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, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine,
and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen.
2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.'
8 The detailed rules governing that freezing of funds are laid down in Article 2(3) to (6) of Decision 2014/145.
9 Article 1(1)(e) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329, prohibits the entry into or transit through the territories of the Member States of natural persons who satisfy essentially the same criteria as those set out in Article 2(1)(g) of that decision.
10 Regulation No 269/2014, as amended by Regulation 2022/330, requires the adoption of measures to freeze funds and lays down the detailed rules governing that freezing in terms essentially identical to those of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329. Article 3(1)(g) of that regulation largely reproduces Article 2(1)(g) of that decision.
11 By Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 31) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 2022 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 80, p. 1) ('the initial acts'), the applicant's name was added, respectively, to the list annexed to Decision 2014/145 and to the list contained in Annex I to Regulation No 269/2014 ('the lists at issue').
12 The applicant brought an action before the General Court, registered as Case T‑272/22, seeking the annulment of the initial acts, in so far as those acts concerned her. That action was dismissed by the judgment of 6 September 2023, Pumpyanskaya v Council (T‑272/22, not published, EU:T:2023:491).
13 On 14 September 2022, the Council adopted Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1), by which it maintained the applicant's name on the lists at issue until 15 March 2023.
14 On 13 March 2023, the Council adopted Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of implementing Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1), by which it maintained the applicant's name on the lists at issue until 15 September 2023.
15 On 5 June 2023, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2023 L 146, p. 20) and Regulation (EU) 2023/1089 amending Regulation No 269/2014 (OJ 2023 L 146, p. 1).
16 Decision 2023/1094 amended, with effect from 7 June 2023, the criteria for listing the names of the persons subject to the freezing of funds, the text of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145 being replaced with the following text:
'(g) leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them, or businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine; or'
17 Regulation 2023/1089 amended Regulation No 269/2014 in a similar way.
18 The applicant brought an action before the General Court, registered as Case T‑737/22, seeking annulment of the first and second sets of maintaining acts, in so far as those acts concerned her. That action was upheld by the judgment of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskaya v Council (T‑737/22, not published, EU:T:2024:417).
19 On 13 September 2023, the Council adopted the third set of maintaining acts, which extended the restrictive measures taken in respect of the applicant until 15 March 2024, for the following reasons:
'[The applicant] is the spouse of [Mr] Dmitry [Alexandrovich] Pumpyansk[i]y, a Russian leading businessperson, member of the Council of [the] Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) of the Russian Federation and President of the Sverdlovsk regional Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (SOSPP). Her husband is also the Vice-President, Member of the Bureau of the Board of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), Co-Chairman of the RSPP Committee on Industrial Policy and Technical Regulation. He is also former Chairman of the Board of Directors of [the company TMK] and former President and board member of Group Sinara. Both companies support and benefit from cooperation with authorities of the Russian Federation and State-owned enterprises, including Russian railways, Gazprom and Rosneft.
[The applicant] is therefore an immediate family member benefitting from her husband Dmitry [Alexandrovich] Pumpyansk[i]y.'
20 On 24 November 2023, the applicant brought the present action, registered as Case T‑1108/23, seeking annulment of the third set of maintaining acts, in so far as those acts concerned her.
21 On 12 March 2024, the Council adopted the fourth set of maintaining acts, which extended the restrictive measures taken in respect of the applicant until 15 September 2024, without modifying the reasons for including the applicant's name on the lists at issue compared with those contained in the third set of maintaining acts.
22 On 12 September 2024, the Council adopted the fifth set of maintaining acts, which extended the application of the fourth set of maintaining acts until 15 March 2025. The reasons for including the applicant's name on the lists at issue were amended as follows:
'[The applicant] is the spouse of [Mr] Dmitry [Alexandrovich] Pumpyansk[i]y, a leading Russian businessperson and President of the Sverdlovsk regional Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (SOSPP).
Her husband is also a former member of the Council of [the] Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) of the Russian Federation, a former Vice-President of the Bureau of the Board of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), and the Co-Chairman of the RSPP Committee on Industrial Policy and Technical Regulation. He is also former Chairman of the Board of Directors of [the company TMK] and former President and board member of Group Sinara. Both companies support and benefit from cooperation with authorities of the Russian Federation and State-owned enterprises, including Russian railways, Gazprom and Rosneft.
[The applicant] is therefore an immediate family member benefitting from her husband [Mr] Dmitry [Alexandrovich] Pumpyansk[i]y.'
Forms of order sought
23 After the modifications of the application, the applicant claims, in essence, that the Court should:
– declare the inapplicability (i) of Article 2(1)(f) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329, and of Article 3(1)(f) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended by Regulation 2022/330, and (ii) of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2023/1094, and of Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 269/2014, as amended by Regulation 2023/1089;
– annul the contested acts in so far as they concern her;
– order the Council to pay the costs.
24 After making observations on the modifications of the application, the Council claims, in essence, that the Court should:
– dismiss the action;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
25 In support of her action, the applicant raises, in essence, five pleas in law, alleging (i) an infringement of the rights of the defence, (ii) a manifest error of assessment, (iii) an infringement of the duty to state reasons, (iv) an infringement of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights; and (v) the illegality under Article 277 TFEU of the listing criteria used in the contested acts.
26 The Court considers it appropriate to begin by examining the second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.
The second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
27 The applicant submits that, in the contested acts, the Council made a manifest error of assessment in so far as her name was maintained on the lists at issue on the basis of the criterion designating persons who benefit from a leading businessperson operating in Russia, laid down in the second part of Article 1(1)(e) and of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2023/1094 ('the second part of the amended (g) criterion').
Preliminary observations
28 It should be noted that the second plea must be regarded as alleging an error of assessment rather than a manifest error of assessment. While it is true that the Council has a degree of discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the legal criteria on which the restrictive measures at issue are based are satisfied, the fact remains that the Courts of the European Union must ensure the review – in principle the full review – of the legality of all acts of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 3 July 2014, National Iranian Tanker Company v Council, T‑565/12, EU:T:2014:608, paragraphs 54 and 55, and of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
29 The effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires, in particular, that the Courts of the European Union ensure that the decision by which restrictive measures were adopted or maintained, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed to be sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119, and of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 62).
30 That assessment must be carried out by examining the evidence and information not in isolation but in their context. The Council discharges the burden of proof borne by it if it presents to the Courts of the European Union a sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent body of evidence to establish that there is a sufficient link between the person or entity subject to a measure freezing that person's funds and the regime or, in general, the situations, being combated (see judgment of 20 July 2017, Badica and Kardiam v Council, T‑619/15, EU:T:2017:532, paragraph 99 and the case-law cited; see, to that effect, judgment of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraphs 63 and 66).
31 It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person or entity to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded. There is no requirement, for that purpose, that the Council produce before the Courts of the European Union all the information and evidence underlying the reasons alleged in the act of which annulment is sought. It is necessary that the information or evidence produced should support the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned (judgments of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraphs 121 and 122, and of 28 November 2013, Council v Fulmen and Mahmoudian, C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraphs 66 and 67; see, also, judgment of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v Council, T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited).
32 If that information or evidence does support those reasons, the Courts of the European Union must then determine whether the facts alleged are made out in the light thereof and assess the probative value of that information or evidence in the circumstances of the particular case and in the light of any observations submitted in relation to them by, among others, the person or entity concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2013, Commission and Others v Kadi, C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 124).
33 As regards, more specifically, the review of legality carried out with regard to the acts which maintain the name of the person concerned on the lists at issue, it should be pointed out that restrictive measures are measures of a precautionary and, by definition, provisional nature, the validity of which always depends on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to persist with them in order to achieve their objective. Thus, when periodically reviewing those measures, it is for the Council to carry out an updated assessment of the situation and to take stock of the effects of those measures, with a view to determining whether they have made it possible to achieve the objectives pursued by the initial inclusion of the names of the persons and entities concerned on the list at issue or whether it is still possible to reach the same conclusion in relation to those persons and entities (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 April 2022, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council, T‑108/21, EU:T:2022:253, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited; judgment of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 67).
34 Accordingly, in order to justify maintaining a person's name on a list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, the Council is not prohibited from basing its decision on the same evidence as that which justified the initial inclusion, the re-inclusion or a previous maintenance of the applicant's name on that list, provided that (i) the reasons for listing remain unchanged and (ii) the context has not changed in such a way that that evidence is now out of date (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 September 2020, Kaddour v Council, T‑510/18, EU:T:2020:436, paragraph 99). In that regard, assessment of the changes in the context involves taking into consideration, first, the situation in the country in respect of which the system of restrictive measures was established and the particular situation of the person concerned (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 September 2020, Kaddour v Council, T‑510/18, EU:T:2020:436, paragraph 101, and of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v Council, T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 78), and, second, all the relevant circumstances and, in particular, the fact that the objectives pursued by the restrictive measures have not been achieved (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 April 2022, Ilunga Luyoyo v Council, T‑108/21, EU:T:2022:253, paragraph 56; see also, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 12 February 2020, Amisi Kumba v Council, T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraphs 82 to 84 and the case-law cited).
35 In the present case, it is clearly apparent from the grounds for listing in the contested acts that the applicant's name was maintained on the lists at issue solely on the basis of the second part of the amended (g) criterion.
36 It is therefore in the light of those preliminary observations that it is necessary to ascertain whether the Council made an error of assessment in deciding, by means of the adoption of the contested acts, to maintain the applicant's name on the lists at issue on the basis of that criterion.
37 The Court considers it appropriate to examine, first, the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts together, and then the fifth set of maintaining acts.
– The application of the second part of the amended (g) criterion to the applicant in the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts
38 In the present case, it should be noted that, by the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts, the Council decided to maintain the applicant's name on the lists at issue on the basis of a single ground, that is to say, that she is an immediate family member of and benefits from a 'leading businessperson', namely her spouse, Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy.
39 The applicant claims, in essence, (i) that she is no longer an 'immediate family member' of her spouse as a result of their separation and of the fact that she now lives in Dubai, (ii) that she does not in any way benefit from her spouse, (iii) that she is financially independent of him as a result of the sale of the shares that she held in Group Sinara, and (iv) that the Council made an error of assessment in finding that her spouse was a 'leading businessperson' for the purposes of the second part of the amended (g) criterion. She concludes that the Council therefore also made an error of assessment in finding her to be an 'immediate family member' of her spouse for the purposes of that criterion.
40 The Council disputes the applicant's arguments. In essence, it submits that, even assuming that she is, as she claims, separated from her spouse, the fact remains that they are still married and that the conditions for applying the second part of the amended (g) criterion are satisfied. It further argues that, as a housewife, the applicant does not have her own resources, making it difficult to imagine how, without help from her spouse, she could maintain her standard of living in Dubai, which is commonly known to be a very expensive place to live. The Council also claims that Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy can be classified as a 'leading businessperson operating in Russia' for the purposes of criterion (g) and that it therefore correctly found that the applicant's name should be maintained on the lists at issue.
41 In that regard, it should be noted, first, that the name of her spouse, Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, was included on the lists at issue by Decision 2022/397 and by Implementing Regulation 2022/396, and that that inclusion was maintained thereafter by Decisions 2022/1530, 2023/572, 2023/1767 and 2024/847 and by Implementing Regulations 2022/1529, 2023/571, 2023/1765 and 2024/849. Second, the re-listing of Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy by Decisions 2023/1767 and 2024/847 and by Implementing Regulations 2023/1765 and 2024/849 is justified in particular by the fact that, as is clear from paragraph 16 above, being a 'leading businessperson operating in Russia' is one of the criteria for inclusion on the lists at issue.
42 However, it is clear from the judgment of 26 June 2024, Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑740/22, not published, EU:T:2024:418), and from the judgment delivered today in Pumpyanskiy v Council (T‑727/24, not published) that the Council made an error of assessment in finding Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy to be still a 'leading businessperson' for the purposes of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145, as amended by Decision 2022/329, and in finding him to be a 'leading businessperson' for the purposes of the second part of the amended (g) criterion.
43 Accordingly, without it being necessary either to assess the evidence adduced by the Council or to analyse whether the applicant is in fact an immediate family member of her spouse, Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, and benefits from him, it must be held that the Council made an error of assessment when it included the applicant's name on the lists at issue by means of the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts, since the merits of that inclusion are founded on a purported benefit derived by her from a person wrongly classified as a 'leading businessperson' for the purposes of the second part of the amended (g) criterion.
44 In the light of the foregoing, the second plea in law must be upheld and the third and fourth sets of maintaining acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, without it being necessary to examine either the other pleas for annulment raised in support of the action or the first head of claim.
– The application of the second part of the amended (g) criterion to the applicant in the fifth set of maintaining acts
45 In her second statement of modification, the applicant repeats, in essence, the arguments she set out in the application and in her first statement of modification, as summarised in paragraph 39 above, seeking to establish that the Council erred in finding that she benefited from her spouse for the purposes of the second part of the amended (g) criterion.
46 In its observations on the second statement of modification, the Council disputes the applicant's arguments and, in essence, repeats the arguments it set out in the defence and in its observations on the first statement of modification, as summarised in paragraph 40 above.
47 In the present case, it should be noted that it is clear from the grounds of the fifth set of maintaining acts that the factual basis of the ground relied on in respect of the applicant, which relates to the second part of the amended (g) criterion and purportedly allows a finding that she benefits from her spouse, refers only, first, to his current or past positions within three bodies, namely the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (CCI) and the Sverdlovsk Regional Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (SOSPP), and, second, to her spouse's former positions within the company TMK and Group Sinara (see paragraph 22 above).
48 Accordingly, given that the grounds for listing indicate a link between the applicant and her spouse's positions referred to in paragraph 47 above, it is necessary to determine whether the factual basis relied on by the Council contains anything to demonstrate that those positions are capable of constituting a benefit from her spouse for the purposes of the second part of the amended (g) criterion.
49 Whether in relation to the positions of the applicant's spouse within the three bodies referred to in paragraph 47 above or to his positions within the company TMK and Group Sinara, suffice it to note that the Council simply mentions those positions but adduces nothing capable of demonstrating in what respect the applicant benefited in any way from her spouse as a result. It follows that the Council cannot rely on those positions of the applicant's spouse in order to justify maintaining her name on the lists at issue pursuant to the second part of the amended (g) criterion.
50 In the light of the foregoing, the applicant is therefore correct to claim that the factual basis on which the Council relied was insufficient to demonstrate that, at the time the fifth set of maintaining acts was adopted, she was benefiting, within the meaning of the second part of the amended (g) criterion, as a result of her spouse's current or past positions.
51 That conclusion cannot be called into question by the Council's arguments, first, that even though she claims to live in Dubai, she is still married to Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy and, second, that, as a housewife, the applicant does not have her own resources, making it impossible to imagine how, without help from her spouse, she could maintain her standard of living in Dubai, which is commonly known to be a very expensive place to live.
52 Irrespective of whether or not the applicant lives in Dubai and of whether or not she and Mr Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy are still married, it must be pointed out that the fact that she is allegedly a housewife and has no resources of her own with which she can support herself in Dubai is not mentioned in the grounds for listing in the fifth set of maintaining acts. Accordingly, unless a substitution of grounds is admitted, the Council cannot be permitted to rely on that fact to establish that those acts are well founded.
53 It should be added that, in any event, it cannot validly be argued that the applicant has no resources of her own enabling her to live in Dubai. Even if she is a housewife, the applicant has demonstrated, as supported by evidence annexed to her written pleadings, that she sold the shares that she held in Group Sinara for a sum enabling her to be financially independent of her spouse.
54 It follows from the foregoing that the Council has not discharged the burden of proof incumbent on it in order to establish that the applicant benefited from a leading businessperson operating in Russia, for the purposes of the amended criterion (g), as a result of the positions held by her spouse referred to in the grounds of the fifth set of maintaining acts.
55 The second plea in law must therefore be upheld and the fifth set of maintaining acts must be annulled in so far as those acts concern the applicant, without it being necessary to examine either the other pleas for annulment raised in support of the action or the first head of claim.
The effects of annulment of the fourth and fifth sets of maintaining acts
56 In the context of its observations on the first and second statements of modification of the application, the Council has claimed that, in the event of the Court annulling the fourth and fifth sets of maintaining acts in so far as they concern the applicant, it should order that the effects of Decision 2024/847 and those of Decision 2024/2456 be maintained in respect of the applicant until the partial annulment of Implementing Regulation 2024/849 and of Implementing Regulation 2024/2455 enters into force.
57 In that regard, it should be recalled that, by Decisions 2024/847 and 2024/2456, the Council updated the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures contained in Annex I to Decision 2014/145, as amended, respectively by adding the applicant's name to it and by maintaining her name on it until 15 March 2025.
58 By Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/528 of 14 March 2025 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L2025/528), the Council updated the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in Annex I to Decision 2014/145, as amended, respectively by adding the applicant's name to it and by maintaining her name on it until 15 September 2025.
59 Therefore, although the annulment of Decisions 2022/337 and 2022/1530, in so far as they concern the applicant, entails the annulment of her listing in Annex I to Decision 2014/145, as amended, for the period from 12 March 2022 to 15 March 2025, that annulment does not, however, extend to Decision 2025/528,to which the present action does not relate.
60 Consequently, since the applicant is, currently, subject to new restrictive measures, the Council's claim relating to the temporal effects of annulment of Decisions 2024/847 and 2024/2456 has become devoid of purpose.
Costs
61 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings.
62 In the present case, since the Council has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
hereby:
1. Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as the name of Ms Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which those restrictive measures apply;
2. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya.
Mastroianni
Brkan
Tóth
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 April 2025.
