Judgment_paragraph 54 · Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya v Council of the European Union (C-695/23 P)

54In the sixth place, as regards the appellant’s argument that the application of restrictive measures to her situation is not consistent with the objectives pursued by Article 21 TEU and is not founded, under Article 215 TFEU, on a sufficient nexus with the Russian Federation, it must be noted, first, that to allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea and arguments which it did not raise before the General Court would be to authorise it to bring before the Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the General Court. In an appeal, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas and arguments debated before the General Court (judgment of 17 October 2024, PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri and PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo v Commission, C‑112/23 P, EU:C:2024:899, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited).

Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya v Council of the European Union (C-695/23 P)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version