Judgment_paragraph 241 · Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy and Others v Council of the European Union (C-696/23 P)

241Next, as regards the first appellant’s argument that the General Court’s reasoning was inconsistent when it found, in paragraph 90 of the first judgment under appeal, that he should have indicated which measures, which would be less restrictive but equally effective in the light of the objectives pursued by the Council, the latter could have adopted in order to mitigate the negative consequences of the limitation on the exercise of his fundamental rights, even though no appropriate alternative measure existed, that argument is unfounded. In that paragraph of the first judgment under appeal, the General Court, after itself setting out a number of such less restrictive measures and finding that they could not be as effective in achieving the objectives pursued, noted that the first appellant had failed to give other examples of such measures. In the absence of such examples, the General Court cannot remedy the first appellant’s omission (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 June 2020, VTB Bank v Council, C‑729/18 P, EU:C:2020:499, paragraphs 85 to 87), and nor can it be assumed that any alternative measures which the first appellant might have been able to indicate would necessarily have been found to be inappropriate by the General Court.

Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy and Others v Council of the European Union (C-696/23 P)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections