The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed the freezing - ordered in February 2022 (Decision (CFSP) 2022/329) - of funds held in the EU of five businessmen active in Russia because of their activities in economic sectors that provide substantial revenue to Russia, in a judgment delivered on Thursday 26 March (joined cases C-696/23P, C-704/23P, C-711/23P, C-35/24P, C-111/24P).
The businessmen Mr Pumpyanskiy (Case T-270/22, see EUROPE 13244/24), Mr Khudaverdyan (Case T-335/22), Mr Rashnikov (Case T-305/22), Mr Mazepin (Case T-282/22, see EUROPE 13288/21) and Mr Khan (Case T-333/22, see EUROPE 13653/28) appealed to the CJEU against judgments of the General Court of the EU, delivered between September and the end of November 2023, which dismissed their appeals.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice dismissed all the appeals. It clarifies that it is the ‘economic sectors’, rather than the leading businesspersons involved in those sectors, that must provide a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government.
As regards the concept of ‘influence’ exercised by the persons concerned, the Court of Justice is of the opinion that it must be understood in the light of the economic context, irrespective of any link that they may have with the Russian Government. It is because of their significant importance to the Russian economy that such people can indirectly help to finance the war of aggression against Ukraine.
In addition, the European Court found that there is an objective link between the influential businessmen and women involved in economic sectors that are lucrative for Russia, and the objective of increasing the pressure exerted on Russia and the cost of its actions to destabilise Ukraine.
Finally, the Court of Justice confirms that, in order to determine whether the restrictive measures are proportionate, it is necessary only to verify that they are not manifestly inappropriate for achieving the legitimate objective pursued and that they do not exceed what is necessary to achieve that objective.
In the present case, the Court of Justice highlights that they are appropriate, being capable of attaining the objective pursued.
See the judgment of the Court of Justice: https://aeur.eu/f/lcl (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)