Rejected by the EU Court, which together with the Court of Justice is part of the European Court, the request for emergency precautionary suspension made by the oligarch Alisher Usmanov against the execution of the decision of the Council of the European Union on restrictive measures and sanctions identified by the EU in defense of the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of Ukraine. The court order, published last June 27, rejects the request to revoke Usmanov’s inclusion in the list of Russian citizens who are recipients of freezing of assets and blocking of activities related to branches owned by a holding company. The oligarch’s legal action attempted to prevent “… the consequences of the controversial restrictive measures on the financial soundness of three subsidiaries owned by a holding company …”, as stated in point 54 of the Ordinance. But “it is clear that in case of revocation of the listing, the oligarch could have asked for the revocation of the freezing measure of the mega yacht Dilbar” seized in Hamburg, explains Giuseppe Loffreda, a lawyer expert in navigation law to Adnkronos. and founding partner of Legal4Transport studio.
Among the reasons given by the Court, the fact that Usmanov, represented by J. Grand d’Esnon, did not demonstrate the gravity or irremediability of the damage resulting from remaining in the list of countries, persons, groups and entities subject to sanctions by the European Union on the basis of decision 2022/337 adopted by the Council on 28 February 2022. The damage resulting from freezings according to the Court is in fact quantifiable and repairable: “… in the event of a request for suspension of the execution of an act of ‘Union – reads point 42 of the Ordinance – the granting of the requested precautionary measure is justified only if the act in question constitutes the determining cause of the alleged serious and irreparable damage “. “… From the appellant’s pleadings – continues at point 44 – it does not appear that, given the nature and foreseeable modalities of the occurrence of his damage, the latter cannot be adequately identified and quantified if it occurs and that, in practice, an action for damages cannot therefore allow them to be remedied … On the contrary, the applicant presents a series of accounting elements that allow, prima facie, not only the identification, but also the quantification of this damage in an adequate way .. . “.
“… It follows that the appellant has not demonstrated either the gravity or the irreparability of the alleged damage (paragraph 46 – ed.) … and has not shown that the condition relating to urgency was met (paragraph 47 – ed.) “, states the Court, which also focuses on the evaluation of the question linked to the balance of interests involved, addressed by point 48.” Looking at the balance of interests, the Court states that the war is much more serious “, comments Loffreda,” .. . as the restrictive measures in question are aimed at effectively counteracting Russia’s ability to continue the aggression suffered by Ukraine, the immediate suspension of the contested acts would risk jeopardizing the Union’s pursuit of objectives, in particular peaceful ones. . “identified, as stated in paragraph 53. The Court finally notes that the restrictive measures” … are, by their nature, reversible and limited in time … “, therefore” in the event that the applicant wins if the cause of him annulling the contested acts in the judgment on the merits, the damage that he might have suffered to his interests can be subject to evaluation and subsequent reparation or compensation “.
(by Roberta Lanzara)
#Ukraine #Usmanov #appeal #Council #rejected #Damage #case #irremediable