(C) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
This story was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Press Release 43/23: Judgment of the General Court in Case T-212/22 | Prigozhina v Council [1]

[]

Date: 2023-03-08

(AGENPARL) – mer 08 marzo 2023 Dear All,

Please find attached press release in respect of Case T-212/22 | Prigozhina v Council:

The General Court annuls the restrictive measures applied to Ms Violetta Prigozhina, mother of Mr Yevgeniy Prigozhin, in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine

Even if the latter is responsible for actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, the link between Ms Prigozhina and her son established at the time of the adoption of the contested acts is based solely on their family relationship and is therefore not sufficient to justify her inclusion on the contested lists

Kind regards,

Natassa Mouzouki

Press and Information Unit, Ireland / Malta

Communication Department

[cid:[email protected]]

[logo-en]

Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald

L-2925 Luxembourg

[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No

43

/23

Luxembourg,

8

March

2023

Judgment of the General Court

in Case T

–

212/22 | Prigozhina

v Council

The General Court annuls the restrictive measures applied to

Ms

Prigozhina, mother of

Mr

Yevgeniy Prigozhin, in the context

of Russia’s war

against Ukraine

Even if

t

he latter is responsible for

actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence

Ms

Prigozhina and her son established at the time of the adoption of the

conteste

d acts

is ba

sed solely on their family

relationship and is therefore not sufficient to justify her inclusion

on the contested lists

In order to respond to the illegal annexation of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by Russia in March 2014 and to

Rus

sia’s d

estabilising actions in e

astern Ukraine, the Council of the European Union adopted, on

17

March

2014

, a

series of restrictive measures.

1

It provided, inter alia, for restrictions to prevent the entry into, or transit through,

the territories of the Member

States of certain persons responsible, inter alia, for actions or policies which

undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. In addition, the Council

froze their funds and their economic resources. Likewise, i

t i

mposed similar penalties on

the persons, entities or

bodies associated with them.

Since the beginning of Russia’s war against Ukraine in February 2022, the Council has, in its acts of

23

February

2022,

2

inter alia added members of the government, banks

, businesspersons and Members of the State Duma of

the Federal Assembly to the lists of

those subject to

restrictive measures. In that context, it added the name of

Ms

Mr

Yevgeniy Prigozhin,

responsible for the deployment

of Wagner Group

mercenaries in Ukraine and for benefitting from large public contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defence

following the illegal annexation of Crim

ea by Russia and occupation of e

astern Ukraine by Russia

–

backed

separatists. According to t

he Council,

Ms

Prigozhina is the owner of Concord Management and Consulting LLC,

which belongs to the Concord group, founded and owned until 2019 by her son. She is also the owner of other

undertakings with links to her son. In the Council’s view, she

has

therefore supported actions and policies which

undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

1

Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of

17

March

2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial

integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (

OJ 2014

L

78

,

p.

16

) and

Council

Regulation (EU)

No

2

69/2014

of 17

March 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

).

2

Council Decisi

on (CFSP) 2022/265 of

23

February

2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions

undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ

2022 L

42I, p.

98), and Council Implementing

Regulation (EU) 2022/

260 of 23

February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU)

No

2

69/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions

undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ

2022 L

42I, p.

3).

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected!

In that context, she

has

requested that the General Court annul the contested acts in so far as they concern her.

In its judgment d

elivered today,

the General Court grants her request

It observes, inter alia, that it is apparent

from the case file that

Ms

Prigozhina has no longer been the owner of Concord Management and Consulting since

2017, even though she had held shares in that u

ndertaking. In addition, the Council

fails to

demonstrate that she

own

ed

other undertakings with links to her son on the date of the adoption of the contested acts.

Consequently,

the

link

that would amount

to an association

between

the

two persons

establi

shed at the time

of the adoption of the contested acts and

up

on which the Council relied on that date

is based solely on their

family

relationship, which, in view of the criterion applied by the Council in the present case, the statement

of reasons on whic

h the contested acts are based and the case

–

law of the Court of Justice, is not sufficient to

justify her inclusion on the contested lists



NOTE:

An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are

contrar

y to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain

conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well

founded, the act is annulled. The ins

titution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the

act.

NOTE:

An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of

the General Court within two months and ten days of notifi

cation of the decision.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.

The

full text

of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

P

ress conta

ct: Jacques René Zammit

✆

(+352) 4

303

335

5

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://agenparl.eu/2023/03/08/press-release-43-23-judgment-of-the-general-court-in-case-t-212-22-prigozhina-v-council/

Published and (C) by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Content appears here under this condition or license: By permission of RFE/RL.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/rferl/