On Wednesday 30 November, the General Court of the EU annulled the decision to freeze the funds of Mr Arkady Rotenberg for the period 2014-2015, due to clear errors made in the examination of the reasons for this decision (Case T-720/14).
This businessman and close associate of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, was accused of having indirectly benefited from economic advantages arising from the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia.
The General Court, however, ruled that the same sanctions did have grounds in the decision made against Mr Rotenberg for the 2015-16 period because the Council added other precise reasons for extending the sanctions over of this period.
From 30 July 2014 until 14 March 2015 (see EUROPE 11133), the Council of the EU froze the funds of the interested party for having been favoured by “Russian decision-makers… in the award of important contracts …” as a major shareholder of the Giprotransmost company to conduct “the feasibility study of the construction of a bridge from Russia to the illegally annexed Autonomous Republic of Crimea, therefore consolidating its integration into the Russian Federation” which in turn further undermines the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
On this point, the Court held that the reference to “Russian decision-makers” was too vague and that the contracts the interested party benefited from involved in a period preceding that in which the Russian state, particularly President Putin, had begun to threaten Ukraine. The judges also consider that the Council did not prove that interested party was in fact a shareholder of Giprotransmost.
The Council subsequently extended the sanctions against Mr Rotenberg until 15 September 2016. It added a number of the reasons to its decision claiming that the interested party was also the owner of the Stroygazmontazh company, which was awarded a public procurement contract to build a bridge between Russia and the Crimea and was also the president of the Board of Directors at the Prosvescheniye publishing house, which organised a campaign to persuade Crimean children that they were Russian citizens.
Under the terms of these new charges, the Court ruled that the measures against Mr Rotenberg for this period did have grounds because the construction of the bridge by his company contributed to the consolidation of Crimea’s integration into Russia and that the campaign carried out by the publishers supported the policy of the Russian government in this sense.
Since 15 September 2016, sanctions against Mr Rotenberg have been extended until March 2017 but the request by the interested party for the annulment and the judgement do not relate to this period. (Original version in French by Francesco Gariazzo)