Author: Ilona Bērziņa
Although Latvia has asked the Legal Service of the Council of Europe to submit an appeal against verdict of the General Court of the European Union on the annulment of sanctions imposed on Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman, the Council of Europe is in no hurry to oblige. Additionally, in accordance with the verdict of the General Court, the EU Council will need to cover Aven’s and Fridman’s legal expenses.
Latvia has asked the Legal Service of the Council of Europe to appeal against the judgments of the General Court of the EU to annul the EU sanctions imposed on Russian billionaires Peter Aven and Mikhail Fridman on the 28th of February, 2022. The Council of Europe has yet to decide on submitting an appeal, as BNN found out from the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The decision of the General Court of the European Union can be appealed in the Grand Chamber of the CJEU within two months and it is not yet known whether the Council of the EU will to it. Sworn attorney Andris Lazdiņš of Lazdiņš Gavars law firm stresses that because of the significant influence of the verdict on the EU sanction regime, there is a possibility the verdict will be appealed. “Ellex Kļaviņš” sworn attorney assistant, sanction expert Kristers Toms Losāns explains the decision can be challenged if there is belief the court had made some serious mistakes. “Theoretically this is possible, but it is highly important to point out the mistake.”
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the party that lost the trial is to pay the legal costs if it was requested by the other trial participant. The Ministry of Justice notes that in accordance with according to the judgment T 301/22 Aven/Council and T 304/22 Fridman/Council, the Council of Europe are to cover their costs and the legal costs accrued by Aven and Fridman.
When asked how big the aforementioned legal costs could be, Kristers Toms Losāns notes: “This is a high-level case, an important case, in which EU member states decided to impose sanctions through the European Parliament, Council of Europe vs. private persons. Everything depends on the agreement that is with the particular legal aid provider, but certainly it is not a cheap pleasure, because it is a rather complicated and serious thing.”
However, when asked if Latvia, which is involved in both cases, supports the position of the Council of Europe on the necessity for certain sanctions and believes it is necessary to compensate legal costs, the Ministry of Justice responded that representation of Latvia in the General Court is ensured by the employees of the Ministry of Justice within the existing budget resources. A.Lazdiņš stresses that the request of Latvia to appeal the said judgment does not mean that it will be at Latvia’s cost, “it will be the expenditure of the EU institution actually appealing the judgments – the Council of Europe. Latvia, on the other hand, as an intervening EU member state, bears its own costs,” says the lawyer.
As previously reported, in the opinion of the General Court of the EU, none of the grounds contained in the original legislation on the exposure of P.Aven and M.Fridman to sanctions has been sufficiently argued and, consequently, their inclusion in the lists of persons subject to sanctions is not justified. The court considers that, although the arguments put forward by the Council of the EU may prove that Avens and Fridman have some kind of connection with Vladimir Putin or persons close to him, they do not allow it to be established that they have supported actions or policies that undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, or that they have provided material or financial support to the Russian officials responsible for the annexation of Crimea. On the other hand, with regard to their subsequent retention in the sanctions lists, the General Court of the EU has ruled that the Council of the EU has not provided any additional evidence compared to those on which it originally relied.
Sworn attorney Andris Lazdiņš stresses that General Court of the European Union has now said that the first extensions that were put on the sanctions lists are null and void, but then there were further extensions of sanctions that remained in force. “Given that the judgment of the court was extensive, if there are no new arguments on the merits in subsequent sanctions decisions, there is a high probability that the same reasoning contained in the judgments will also be applied to annul future decisions. As each of these [subsequent] sanctions orders are issued by a separate decision of the Council of Europe and have not been set aside by this judgment in this case, they are still in force. It can be guessed that for the last [extensions of sanctions] there will be similar conclusions.”
A.Lazdiņš notes that the criteria when a person may be subject to restrictions are analysed through the prism of whether the person is involved in a threat to the integrity of the territory of Ukraine, financed or received funding from those directly responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. “The judges have gone through these criteria and the Council’s reference to a number of publications has been justified, and that big conclusion of the court is that it has not been sufficiently proven and substantiated. It is, of course, a question of how detailed this should be done at all, because any sanctions also have a political aspect, not just a purely legal scope. It is an open question how far the introduction of sanctions the Council of the Europe has to justify it. What the court here said is not sufficiently reasoned and the evidence invoked by the Council of the European Union is not enough to convince the court.” At the same time, he stresses that as to how the appellate instance would decide, he does not assume to make predictions. However, he fully admits that the Grand Chamber of the CJEU might decide the judgment of the General Court is incorrect.
Kristers Toms Losāns said that if the Council of the EU does not amend its reasoning as to why it imposed sanctions on the persons concerned, it should not, by analogy, be the case that the sanctions continue to be applied.
Also read: Week in Lithuania | Top court rules MP violated Constitution; Minister alerts prosecutors on President’s statement on Volkov attacker
Follow us on Facebook and X!
Latvia requests appeal for decision to lift sanctions from Russian billionaire; Council of Europe still thinking
