Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/876 of 5 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

Versions

1. 2015-06-05

Cited by

• Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/869 of 5 June 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine Regulation · Grade B

  On 5 June 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/876, providing that in respect of one of those four persons, the restrictive measures should apply until 6 October 2015 and for two of those persons, the restrictive measures should apply until 6 March 2016. In addition, the statement of reasons relating to those persons should be updated.

• Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine Decision · Grade B

  On 5 June 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/876, which, inter alia, provided that, in respect of two of those four persons, the application of the restrictive measures should be extended until 6 March 2016, and for one of those persons until 6 October 2015. On 5 October 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1781, which provided in respect of that person that the application of the restrictive measures should be extended until 6 March 2016.

• Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1781 of 5 October 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine Decision · Grade B

  On 5 June 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/876, which inter alia provided that in respect of one of those four persons, the application of the restrictive measures should be extended until 6 October 2015 and that the statement of reasons relating to him was to be updated.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  In Case T‑341/14, Sergiy Klyuyev, residing in Donetsk (Ukraine), represented by R. Gherson, T. Garner, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister, applicant,v Council of the European Union, represented by Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents, defendant, supported by European Commission, represented by D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents, intervener, APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26),

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  On 5 June 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/876 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 142, p. 30) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/869 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 142, p. 1). Decision 2015/876, first, replaced Article 5 of Decision 2014/119 by extending the application of the restrictive measures, in so far as the applicant is concerned, until 6 October 2015 and, secondly, amended the annex to that decision. Implementing Regulation 2015/869 consequently amended Annex I to Regulation No 208/2014.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  By Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869, the applicant’s name was maintained on the list with the heading brother of Mr Andrii Kliuiev, businessman and the following new statement of reasons: Person subject to investigation by the Ukrainian authorities for involvement in the misappropriation of public funds. Person associated with a designated person (Andrii Petrovych Kliuiev) subject to criminal proceedings by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public funds or assets.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 August 2015, the applicant modified the form of order sought in order also to seek annulment of Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869. On 14 September 2015, the Council submitted a reasoned application in accordance with Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure requesting that the content of certain annexes to the observations on the statement modifying the form of order sought should not be cited in the documents relating to the present case to which the public has access.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014 in so far as they relate to him; annul Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869 in so far as they relate to him; order the Council to pay the costs.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  As was indicated in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, Decision 2015/364 and Implementing Regulation 2015/357 amended the reason for inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list and extended the application of the restrictive measures, as regards the applicant, until 6 June 2015. Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869 subsequently amended the reason for inclusion and extended the application of the restrictive measures, as regards the applicant, until 6 October 2015.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  The applicant did not bring an action against Decision 2015/364 or Implementing Regulation 2015/357, which have therefore become final in so far as he is concerned. However, he has modified the form of order sought in the present case so that it also seeks annulment of Decision 2015/876 and of Implementing Regulation 2015/869.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  The Council, supported by the Commission, submits that, since the applicant did not challenge either Decision 2015/364 or Implementing Regulation 2015/357, which replaced the restrictive measures imposed by Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014, he implicitly accepted being subject to those restrictive measures and thus lost his interest in bringing proceedings. Furthermore, the modification of the form of order sought, submitted by the applicant with a view to the annulment of Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869, may not, it is contended, be relied on in support of a

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  With regard, more particularly, to the fact that he did not challenge Decision 2015/364 and Implementing Regulation 2015/357, he claims that, since those measures extended the restrictive measures against him only for three months, that is to say, until 6 June 2015, it was unlikely that an action could have been heard before a subsequent amendment of the measures. He adds that he nevertheless modified the form of order sought to include Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869, which subsequently extended the restrictive measures against him, and that he therefore still has an in

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  In the statement modifying the form of order sought, the applicant also seeks annulment of Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869 in so far as they relate to him.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  The Council, supported by the Commission, contends, first of all, that the statement modifying the form of order sought is inadmissible. First, it submits that the applicant could not modify the claim for annulment of Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014, in so far as they relate to him, so that that claim also covers Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869, given that Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014 had already been replaced by Decision 2015/364 and Implementing Regulation 2015/357. Consequently, according to the Council, Decision 2015/876 and Implementing

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  Secondly, the Council submits that the statement modifying the form of order sought does not contain a statement of reasons, which it ought to have contained in accordance with Article 86(3) of the Rules of Procedure, bearing in mind the new factual and legal situation on the date on which the new measures were adopted, that is to say, that relating to the entry into force of Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  The annexes in question were subsequently amended by Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869. As has been explained in paragraph 15 above, following that amendment, the applicant’s name was retained on the list with a new statement of reasons. Those measures are the subject of the statement modifying the form of order sought.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  Finally, the name of the applicant was retained on the list in Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869 on the ground that he was a person subject to investigation by the Ukrainian authorities for involvement in the misappropriation of public funds and a person associated with a designated person (Andrii Petrovych Kliuiev) subject to criminal proceedings by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public finds or assets.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  Thus, the reason for the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list relating to Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869, which are covered by the statement modifying the form of order sought, differs substantially from the reason for the inclusion of his name on the list relating to Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014, which are covered by the application.

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  While the reason for the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list set out in Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014 merely referred to an investigation in Ukraine concerning involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, the reason for the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list set out in Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869 provides more explanations as to why the applicant is subject to restrictive measures, in particular with the addition of the reference to his association wi

• Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) 28 January 2016 Judgment · Grade B

  Although the arguments referred to in paragraph 69 above are well founded with regard to the evidence for the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list, as is clear from paragraphs 35 to 53 above, it must be concluded that the reason for the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the list set out in Decision 2015/876 and Implementing Regulation 2015/869 is based on other evidence provided by the Council in the present proceedings. Although that evidence, which postdates Decision 2014/119 and Regulation No 208/2014, is not relevant for the purpose of assessing the legality of that initial lis