Fons Iuris
Torna alla ricerca
Corte di giustizia UEsentenza

Corte di giustizia UE n. 765/2026

ECLI:EU:T:2026:464
Testo integrale del provvedimento

Testo integrale del provvedimento

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA])

15 July 2026 ( * ) ( Action for annulment – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Prohibition on the purchase, import or transfer of potash products from Belarus – Prevention of the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania – Application seeking assessment of the legality of a provision that does not provide for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons within the meaning of the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Application for a direction to be issued – Partial lack of jurisdiction – Breach of procedural requirements – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Partial inadmissibility – Action for failure to act – No call to act – Inadmissibility )

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑261/24,

Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB, established in Klaipėda (Lithuania), represented by

V. Nikitinas and A. Staševskaja, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by B. Driessen and L. Berger, acting as Agents, defendant, supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, represented by K. Dieninis, S. Grigonis,

V. Vasiliauskienė and

V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė, acting as Agents, intervener,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

composed of K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], I. Reine and R. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA],

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]: V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA],

having regard to the written part of the procedure, having regard to the order of 19 May 2025, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

(T‑261/24, not published, EU:T:2025:540), dismissing the action in so far as it was directed against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in part as inadmissible and in part as having been brought before a court lacking jurisdiction to hear and determine it, having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 106(3) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], gives the following

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

1 By its action, the applicant, Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB, in essence, (i) under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], seeks annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1), as amended and supplemented, and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1), as amended and supplemented, in so far as they concern the prohibition on the transfer of potassium chloride (potash) fertilisers from Belarus; and (ii) under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] unlawfully refrained from taking, at the applicant’s request, any steps to remedy a number of infringements of international agreements and of EU law.

Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is a Lithuanian company specialising, inter alia, in the transshipment of potash products in the port of Klaipėda (Lithuania).

Its business mainly involves the transit by rail of potash fertilisers from Belarus through the territory of Lithuania to third countries. 3 The present case arises in the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] since 2004 in view of the situation in Belarus as regards democracy, the rule of law and human rights and the involvement of that State in actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. 4 In the light, in particular, of the persistent failure to respect human rights, democracy and the rule of law and the systematic repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus, on 18 May 2006 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted, under Articles 75 and 215 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 imposing individual restrictive measures on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and certain officials of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Belarus.

In addition, on 15 October 2012, it adopted, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 29 TEU, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 supplementing that package of measures by, in particular, sectoral restrictive measures with a view to prohibiting the sale, supply, transfer or export to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Belarus of arms and related material. 5 In response to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] illegal annexation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol in March 2014, on 17 March 2014 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted, inter alia, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 215 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

Furthermore, on 31 July 2014 it adopted, on the same basis, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1). 6 In parallel, in May 2014 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] drew up and submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (RELEX) a document entitled ‘Guidance of May 2014’ (‘the May 2014 document’), by which it sought to clarify the term ‘transfer’ when used in relation to ‘transport’. 7 On 24 June 2021, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2021/1031 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 (OJ 2021 L 224 I, p. 15) and by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2021/1030 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 (OJ 2021 L 224 I, p. 1), inserted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i in the latter decision and the latter regulation respectively, laying down a prohibition on the purchase, import or transfer of potash products from Belarus. 8 On 22 June 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted a document entitled ‘Consolidated FAQs on the implementation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 833/2014 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014’ (‘the contested FAQs’), which included, in particular, specific details on the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ for the purpose of implementing the restrictive measures provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014, No 833/2014 and, by analogy, No 765/2006. 9 On 24 February 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2023/421 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41).

By that decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], first, extended the applicability of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 until 28 February 2024 and, second, amended the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to that decision. 10 On 24 May 2023, the applicant brought an action seeking annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g(1) and (1a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of and Annex VIII to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, both as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023/421. 11 On 12 September 2023 and 30 October 2023, the applicant sent two letters to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] calling on it to take the view, first, that the prohibition laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 did not apply to the transit of potash fertilisers through Lithuania, as a result, it claimed, of the infringement of several international agreements, and, second, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania was in breach of its obligations under EU law. 12 Furthermore, on 29 January 2024, by a letter sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant asked, as its main request, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 be supplemented by provisions defining the term ‘transfer’ and establishing a derogation from the restrictive measure at issue.

In the alternative, it requested the adoption of an explanatory measure. 13 By order of 6 December 2023, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

(T‑287/23, not published, EU:T:2023:793), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed the applicant’s action referred to in paragraph 10 above as inadmissible. 14 By letters of 8 and 15 February 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the applicant’s requests, stating, inter alia, that the sectoral prohibition at issue included the prohibition on the transit of Belarusian potash products and transport services in relation to such products and that that was not contrary to EU law. 15 By letter of 26 February 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the applicant that responsibility for the implementation and interpretation of the restrictive measures lay with the competent national authorities of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that, consequently, specific questions in that regard should be addressed to them. 16 On 26 February 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2024/769 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 (OJ L, 2024/769).

By that decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], first, extended the applicability of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 until 28 February 2025 and, second, amended the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to that decision. 17 On the same date, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/768 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8a of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 (OJ L, 2024/768).

By that regulation, it amended Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 containing the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures.

Forms of order sought 18 The applicant claims, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: – annul the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document as regards the interpretation and definition of the term ‘transfer’; – declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] misused its powers by allowing and subsequently not withdrawing the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ set out in those FAQs and that document; – annul [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, as amended and supplemented, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, as amended and supplemented, in so far as they are incompatible with the provisions of international agreements and of EU law concerning restrictions on the transit of potash fertilisers from Belarus to third countries through the applicant’s port terminal; – declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] unlawfully refrained from taking, at the applicant’s request, any steps to remedy a number of infringements of international agreements and of other provisions of EU law; – order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt provisions pursuant to which the restrictive measures provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 do not apply to the transport by rail of potash products from Belarus through the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], between the Belarusian and Lithuanian borders and the applicant’s port terminal, or to other operations relating to transit to third countries, or to order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to publish official guidelines or clarification in that regard; – order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 19 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, claims, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: – dismiss the action as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded; – order the applicant to pay the costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applicant’s first and second heads of claim 20 By its first head of claim, the applicant requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to annul in part the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document. 21 By its second head of claim, the applicant requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] misused its powers by unlawfully adopting, under its power of legislative initiative, and subsequently not withdrawing, the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ set out in the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document, in breach of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 17(1) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 31(1) TEU. 22 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, submits that those heads of claim are inadmissible, which the applicant disputes.

In the alternative, the applicant raises a plea of illegality under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in respect of the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document. 23 In the first place, it should be borne in mind at the outset that an action for annulment must be brought against the EU institution, body, office or agency that adopted the act in question (see order of 19 May 2025, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA],

T‑261/24, not published, EU:T:2025:540, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). 24 Accordingly, since the institution that adopted the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document is not the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] but the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot be designated as a defendant in relation to the first and second heads of claim. 25 In the second place, a plea, such as that in the present case, that an act of general application does not apply under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not constitute an independent right of action and recourse may be had to it only as an incidental plea (order of 19 November 2018,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and SRB , T‑494/17, EU:T:2018:804, paragraph 21). 26 Furthermore, it cannot be ascertained from the applicant’s arguments which acts should be annulled under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on account of the alleged unlawfulness of the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document.

Nor does the applicant explain, therefore, to what extent those documents form the legal basis for the acts which it seeks to have annulled.

Accordingly, it must be held that the applicant’s arguments do not meet the requirements of sufficient clarity and precision laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 76(d) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 27 In those circumstances, the present heads of claim must be rejected as inadmissible.

The applicant’s third head of claim 28 By the present head of claim, the applicant requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in essence, to annul in part [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, both as supplemented and amended, to the extent that they are incompatible with the provisions of international agreements and EU law regarding the restriction of the transit of potash fertilisers from Belarus to third countries through the BKT terminal (port of Klaipėda); 29 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, claims that, in the light of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642.

Next, it submits that the present head of claim is inadmissible under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 76(d) and (e) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, given that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 has been amended on numerous occasions and that, in that context, the applicant has still not identified which provision of that regulation it seeks to have annulled.

Last, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims, in essence, that the third head of claim was submitted outside the time limit for bringing proceedings laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 30 The applicant refutes those arguments and notes that what is sought in the present head of claim seeks specifically to challenge the restriction on the transit of potash products from Belarus to third countries through its port terminal and that that prohibition is laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, as is explicitly evident from the application.

It also submits that the claim in question is not out of time, since the action was brought within the time limit that ran from the date of publication of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/769 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768 in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] . 31 In the first place, concerning the scope of the present head of claim, it is true that the applicant confines itself to seeking annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, both as amended and supplemented, and does not specify which provisions within that regulation and of that decision it wishes to be annulled. 32 However, it is clear from the wording itself of the present head of claim that the applicant is seeking annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 in so far as they establish the sectoral prohibition on transferring Belarusian potash products.

That prohibition appears in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of that regulation and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of that decision, which are both expressly cited in the application. 33 Furthermore, by way of its overview of the facts, the application refers to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768 and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/769 adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 26 February 2024. 34 It is therefore clear from the application that the applicant intended to refer to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 as amended and supplemented by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], most recently, on 26 February 2024. 35 In the second place, as regards [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, that decision was adopted under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 29 TEU, which is a provision relating to the ‘common foreign and security policy’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

Moreover, the prohibition measures laid down by that decision are of a general nature, their scope being determined by reference to objective criteria and not by reference to identified natural or legal persons. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of that decision is not a decision providing for ‘restrictive measures against natural or legal persons’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

Accordingly, it must be concluded that, under the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine an action seeking to assess the legality of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of that decision. 36 In the third place, as regards [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, it should be borne in mind that, under the sixth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an action for annulment must be brought within two months of the publication of the contested measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be. 37 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 59 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure provides that where the time limit allowed for initiating proceedings against a measure adopted by an institution runs from the publication of that measure in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that time limit shall be calculated, for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58(1)(a), from the end of the fourteenth day after such publication.

In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60 of those rules, that time limit is, in addition, to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days. 38 According to settled case-law, the time limit prescribed for bringing proceedings is a matter of public policy since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, and the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must ascertain of their own motion whether that time limit has been observed (see order of 24 June 2024, Druzyagin v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

, T‑186/24, not published, EU:T:2024:427, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited). 39 In the present case, it should be noted, first, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, annulment of which the applicant is seeking in the present action, was inserted by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021/1030 and was applicable without any time limit. 40 Second, the only amendment made to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 on 26 February 2024 was that made by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768.

That amendment concerns only Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, which consists of the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the measures freezing funds and economic resources.

As the applicant stated expressly in its written pleadings, it is not challenging the individual measures imposed on specific entities. 41 It follows that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 was neither amended nor supplemented by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 26 February 2024 and has subsequently remained unchanged.

In that respect, it should be noted, first, that the time limit for bringing proceedings against [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021/1030 and, therefore, against that provision, had expired several years before the present proceedings were brought and, second, that the adoption of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768 did not have the effect that a new time limit in which to bring proceedings to dispute the legality of that provision began to run for the applicant. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant’s claims directed against the provision in question are out of time and, therefore, inadmissible. 42 In those circumstances, the present head of claim must be rejected, in part as having been brought before a court lacking jurisdiction to hear and determine it and in part as inadmissible.

The applicant’s fourth head of claim 43 By the present head of claim, the applicant criticises the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for failing to act following its call to do so of 29 January 2024. 44 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, submits that the applicant’s call to act received a response on 26 February 2024.

It then claims that the present head of claim is inadmissible because it was lodged more than two months and ten days after that response.

It also observes that the request was in fact addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rather than to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania claims that that circumstance is significant, because the applicant did not directly call upon the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to act, contrary to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

It concludes as a result that, in those circumstances, an action pursuant to that provision could only be brought against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], since the applicant submitted a call to act to that institution but not to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 45 In the alternative, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that the present head of claim is unfounded.

It states, in particular, in essence, that the applicant’s call to act concerns the implementation of the sectoral measure at issue and, as such, falls within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s competence rather than its own.

Moreover, it submits that it cannot adopt the provisions requested by the applicant without a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] proposal.

It refutes that it is obliged to take a position on the interpretation of EU legislation.

Last, it claims that the applicant could have challenged [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021/1030 but failed to do so and therefore can no longer challenge it in the present action. 46 The applicant disputes the arguments of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania.

It submits, first, that the present head of claim is admissible, because the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] confined itself to responding to the applicant by general statements, and that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] letter of 26 February 2024 cannot therefore be regarded as a definition of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] position within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

It acknowledges that its call to act was formally addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] but submits that it was also sent to the official email address of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that its examination fell within the competence of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

The applicant submits that both the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania have accepted that the letter in question expressed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] position on that call to act.

Even assuming that it did not, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] would in that case have failed to define its position on that call to act, and the applicant’s action for failure to act would also have been brought within the time limit. 47 Second, the applicant submits, in essence, that the principles of legal certainty, of transparency and of the legality of criminal offences and penalties required the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to define the term ‘transfer’ clearly.

It also claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has a duty to take all necessary measures to ensure fulfilment of the Treaty obligations and the consistency of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] policies and actions and to guarantee compliance with the principles of legality, subsidiarity, proportionality and providing reasons for acts.

The applicant refers to an unlawfully broad definition of the term ‘transfer’, which has not been remedied by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

In that regard it relies on existing international agreements and the principles of legality, uniform application of EU rules and equal treatment. 48 It must be borne in mind that, pursuant to the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an action for failure to act is admissible only if the institution in question has first been called upon to act.

Giving the institution formal notice is an essential procedural requirement the effects of which are, first, to cause the two-month period within which the institution is required to define its position to begin to run and, secondly, to delimit any action that might be brought should the institution fail to define its position (order of 24 June 2016, Onix Asigurări v

EIOPA

, T‑590/15, EU:T:2016:374, paragraph 32). 49 In the present case, as the applicant acknowledges, its call to act was addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

Accordingly, first, the applicant produced a postal receipt dated 29 January 2024, which shows the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as the only addressee.

Second, it is clear from the letterhead of that call to act, the form of address and the wording of the applicant’s requests that the applicant was appealing expressly to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

Moreover, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not appear even as being copied into that call to act. 50 Although the applicant states that its call to act was, in fact, sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] official email address and therefore was indeed communicated to it, the applicant does not however support that statement with any evidence. 51 Furthermore, the letter from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 26 February 2024 was sent electronically to the applicant, by the cabinet of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

That letter was also signed by the head of cabinet of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 52 In those circumstances, and even though the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was competent to examine the applicant’s requests, it cannot be found to have been called upon to act by the applicant.

Nor can it be found that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] answered the applicant, even indirectly, in the letter from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 26 February 2024. 53 Accordingly, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 48 above, it should be found that the requirements laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are not satisfied and that, consequently, the fourth head of claim is inadmissible. 54 In any event, even assuming that the applicant had sent the call to act to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it should be borne in mind that, in order to rule on the substance of a claim of failure to act, it is necessary for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to determine whether, at the time of the call to act, the institution in question was under a duty to act in the manner requested by the applicant in that request (see, to that effect, order of 17 July 2020, Wagenknecht v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

, T‑715/19, EU:T:2020:340, paragraph 34). 55 In that regard, first, it should be borne in mind that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has a broad discretion in areas, such as the area of restrictive measures, which involve the making by that institution of political, economic and social choices, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft , C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 113 and the case-law cited). 56 Second it should be noted that, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 215 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acts on a joint proposal from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

In the present case, in the absence of any such joint proposal to amend [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could not act on its own initiative. 57 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], contrary to the applicant’s claim, neither [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4(3) TEU nor [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19(1) of the annex to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure (OJ 2009 L 325, p. 35) required the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt an explanatory measure or to amend an existing regulation, such as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006. 58 Fourth, the explanatory measures taken by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in relation to the concept of ‘transfer’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 833/2014 or by means of the guidelines comprising document 15579/03 were likewise not such as to give rise to an obligation on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt an explanatory measure or to supplement [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 in relation to the restrictive measure in question.

Suffice it to note, first, that the restrictive measures laid down by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 833/2014 apply to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and are separate from the restrictive measures applied in respect of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Belarus.

Second, the guidelines comprising document 15579/03 merely state that it may be necessary to address the definition of the term ‘transit’.

In any event, those guidelines are only general recommendations and have no binding legal effect (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

, T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 78). 59 In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had no obligation to act, with the effect that the present head of claim is, in any event, unfounded. 60 It follows from the foregoing that the present head of claim must be rejected.

The applicant’s fifth head of claim 61 By the present head of claim, the applicant asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt certain provisions. 62 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the applicant’s request under the present head of claim is inadmissible.

The applicant has not responded to those arguments. 63 In the present case, it should be noted, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has observed, that the present head of claim appears to be seeking an injunction. 64 It is settled case-law that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the EU institutions or to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see order of 19 May 2025, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v

[OSCURATO:PERSONA],

T‑261/24, not published, EU:T:2025:540, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). 65 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the present head of claim must be rejected on the ground that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it. 66 It follows from the foregoing that the action must be dismissed, in part as having been brought before a court that lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it, in part as inadmissible and in part as in any event unfounded.

Costs 67 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 68 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter. 69 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania must bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA])

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA];

3. Orders the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

Kowalik-Bańczyk Reine da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in open court in Luxembourg on 15 July 2026.

V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

* Language of the case: English.

Anonimizzato ex art. 52 D.Lgs. 196/2003
[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 15 July 2026 ( * ) ( Action for annulment – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Prohibition on the purchase, import or transfer of potash products from Belarus – Prevention of the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania – Application seeking assessment of the legality of a provision that does not provide for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons within the meaning of the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Application for a direction to be issued – Partial lack of jurisdiction – Breach of procedural requirements – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Partial inadmissibility – Action for failure to act – No call to act – Inadmissibility ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑261/24, Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB, established in Klaipėda (Lithuania), represented by V. Nikitinas and A. Staševskaja, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by B. Driessen and L. Berger, acting as Agents, defendant, supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, represented by K. Dieninis, S. Grigonis, V. Vasiliauskienė and V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė, acting as Agents, intervener, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], I. Reine and R. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written part of the procedure, having regard to the order of 19 May 2025, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑261/24, not published, EU:T:2025:540), dismissing the action in so far as it was directed against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in part as inadmissible and in part as having been brought before a court lacking jurisdiction to hear and determine it, having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 106(3) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its action, the applicant, Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB, in essence, (i) under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], seeks annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1), as amended and supplemented, and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1), as amended and supplemented, in so far as they concern the prohibition on the transfer of potassium chloride (potash) fertilisers from Belarus; and (ii) under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] unlawfully refrained from taking, at the applicant’s request, any steps to remedy a number of infringements of international agreements and of EU law. Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is a Lithuanian company specialising, inter alia, in the transshipment of potash products in the port of Klaipėda (Lithuania). Its business mainly involves the transit by rail of potash fertilisers from Belarus through the territory of Lithuania to third countries. 3 The present case arises in the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] since 2004 in view of the situation in Belarus as regards democracy, the rule of law and human rights and the involvement of that State in actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. 4 In the light, in particular, of the persistent failure to respect human rights, democracy and the rule of law and the systematic repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus, on 18 May 2006 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted, under Articles 75 and 215 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 imposing individual restrictive measures on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and certain officials of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Belarus. In addition, on 15 October 2012, it adopted, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 29 TEU, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 supplementing that package of measures by, in particular, sectoral restrictive measures with a view to prohibiting the sale, supply, transfer or export to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Belarus of arms and related material. 5 In response to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] illegal annexation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol in March 2014, on 17 March 2014 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted, inter alia, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 215 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6). Furthermore, on 31 July 2014 it adopted, on the same basis, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1). 6 In parallel, in May 2014 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] drew up and submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (RELEX) a document entitled ‘Guidance of May 2014’ (‘the May 2014 document’), by which it sought to clarify the term ‘transfer’ when used in relation to ‘transport’. 7 On 24 June 2021, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2021/1031 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 (OJ 2021 L 224 I, p. 15) and by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2021/1030 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 (OJ 2021 L 224 I, p. 1), inserted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i in the latter decision and the latter regulation respectively, laying down a prohibition on the purchase, import or transfer of potash products from Belarus. 8 On 22 June 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted a document entitled ‘Consolidated FAQs on the implementation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 833/2014 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014’ (‘the contested FAQs’), which included, in particular, specific details on the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ for the purpose of implementing the restrictive measures provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014, No 833/2014 and, by analogy, No 765/2006. 9 On 24 February 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2023/421 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41). By that decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], first, extended the applicability of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 until 28 February 2024 and, second, amended the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to that decision. 10 On 24 May 2023, the applicant brought an action seeking annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g(1) and (1a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of and Annex VIII to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, both as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023/421. 11 On 12 September 2023 and 30 October 2023, the applicant sent two letters to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] calling on it to take the view, first, that the prohibition laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 did not apply to the transit of potash fertilisers through Lithuania, as a result, it claimed, of the infringement of several international agreements, and, second, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania was in breach of its obligations under EU law. 12 Furthermore, on 29 January 2024, by a letter sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant asked, as its main request, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 be supplemented by provisions defining the term ‘transfer’ and establishing a derogation from the restrictive measure at issue. In the alternative, it requested the adoption of an explanatory measure. 13 By order of 6 December 2023, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑287/23, not published, EU:T:2023:793), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed the applicant’s action referred to in paragraph 10 above as inadmissible. 14 By letters of 8 and 15 February 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the applicant’s requests, stating, inter alia, that the sectoral prohibition at issue included the prohibition on the transit of Belarusian potash products and transport services in relation to such products and that that was not contrary to EU law. 15 By letter of 26 February 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the applicant that responsibility for the implementation and interpretation of the restrictive measures lay with the competent national authorities of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that, consequently, specific questions in that regard should be addressed to them. 16 On 26 February 2024, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2024/769 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 (OJ L, 2024/769). By that decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], first, extended the applicability of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 until 28 February 2025 and, second, amended the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to that decision. 17 On the same date, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2024/768 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8a of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 (OJ L, 2024/768). By that regulation, it amended Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 containing the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures. Forms of order sought 18 The applicant claims, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        annul the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document as regards the interpretation and definition of the term ‘transfer’; –        declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] misused its powers by allowing and subsequently not withdrawing the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ set out in those FAQs and that document; –        annul [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, as amended and supplemented, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, as amended and supplemented, in so far as they are incompatible with the provisions of international agreements and of EU law concerning restrictions on the transit of potash fertilisers from Belarus to third countries through the applicant’s port terminal; –        declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] unlawfully refrained from taking, at the applicant’s request, any steps to remedy a number of infringements of international agreements and of other provisions of EU law; –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt provisions pursuant to which the restrictive measures provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 do not apply to the transport by rail of potash products from Belarus through the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], between the Belarusian and Lithuanian borders and the applicant’s port terminal, or to other operations relating to transit to third countries, or to order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to publish official guidelines or clarification in that regard; –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 19 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, claims, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the action as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applicant’s first and second heads of claim 20 By its first head of claim, the applicant requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to annul in part the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document. 21 By its second head of claim, the applicant requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to declare that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] misused its powers by unlawfully adopting, under its power of legislative initiative, and subsequently not withdrawing, the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ set out in the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document, in breach of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 17(1) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 31(1) TEU. 22 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, submits that those heads of claim are inadmissible, which the applicant disputes. In the alternative, the applicant raises a plea of illegality under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in respect of the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document. 23 In the first place, it should be borne in mind at the outset that an action for annulment must be brought against the EU institution, body, office or agency that adopted the act in question (see order of 19 May 2025, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], T‑261/24, not published, EU:T:2025:540, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). 24 Accordingly, since the institution that adopted the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document is not the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] but the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot be designated as a defendant in relation to the first and second heads of claim. 25 In the second place, a plea, such as that in the present case, that an act of general application does not apply under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not constitute an independent right of action and recourse may be had to it only as an incidental plea (order of 19 November 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and SRB , T‑494/17, EU:T:2018:804, paragraph 21). 26 Furthermore, it cannot be ascertained from the applicant’s arguments which acts should be annulled under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on account of the alleged unlawfulness of the contested FAQs and the May 2014 document. Nor does the applicant explain, therefore, to what extent those documents form the legal basis for the acts which it seeks to have annulled. Accordingly, it must be held that the applicant’s arguments do not meet the requirements of sufficient clarity and precision laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 76(d) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 27 In those circumstances, the present heads of claim must be rejected as inadmissible. The applicant’s third head of claim 28 By the present head of claim, the applicant requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in essence, to annul in part [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, both as supplemented and amended, to the extent that they are incompatible with the provisions of international agreements and EU law regarding the restriction of the transit of potash fertilisers from Belarus to third countries through the BKT terminal (port of Klaipėda); 29 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, claims that, in the light of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642. Next, it submits that the present head of claim is inadmissible under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 76(d) and (e) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, given that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 has been amended on numerous occasions and that, in that context, the applicant has still not identified which provision of that regulation it seeks to have annulled. Last, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims, in essence, that the third head of claim was submitted outside the time limit for bringing proceedings laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 30 The applicant refutes those arguments and notes that what is sought in the present head of claim seeks specifically to challenge the restriction on the transit of potash products from Belarus to third countries through its port terminal and that that prohibition is laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, as is explicitly evident from the application. It also submits that the claim in question is not out of time, since the action was brought within the time limit that ran from the date of publication of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/769 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768 in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] . 31 In the first place, concerning the scope of the present head of claim, it is true that the applicant confines itself to seeking annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, both as amended and supplemented, and does not specify which provisions within that regulation and of that decision it wishes to be annulled. 32 However, it is clear from the wording itself of the present head of claim that the applicant is seeking annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 in so far as they establish the sectoral prohibition on transferring Belarusian potash products. That prohibition appears in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of that regulation and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of that decision, which are both expressly cited in the application. 33 Furthermore, by way of its overview of the facts, the application refers to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768 and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/769 adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 26 February 2024. 34 It is therefore clear from the application that the applicant intended to refer to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642 as amended and supplemented by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], most recently, on 26 February 2024. 35 In the second place, as regards [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2012/642, that decision was adopted under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 29 TEU, which is a provision relating to the ‘common foreign and security policy’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Moreover, the prohibition measures laid down by that decision are of a general nature, their scope being determined by reference to objective criteria and not by reference to identified natural or legal persons. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of that decision is not a decision providing for ‘restrictive measures against natural or legal persons’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Accordingly, it must be concluded that, under the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine an action seeking to assess the legality of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2g of that decision. 36 In the third place, as regards [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, it should be borne in mind that, under the sixth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an action for annulment must be brought within two months of the publication of the contested measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be. 37 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 59 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure provides that where the time limit allowed for initiating proceedings against a measure adopted by an institution runs from the publication of that measure in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that time limit shall be calculated, for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58(1)(a), from the end of the fourteenth day after such publication. In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60 of those rules, that time limit is, in addition, to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days. 38 According to settled case-law, the time limit prescribed for bringing proceedings is a matter of public policy since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, and the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must ascertain of their own motion whether that time limit has been observed (see order of 24 June 2024, Druzyagin v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑186/24, not published, EU:T:2024:427, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited). 39 In the present case, it should be noted, first, that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, annulment of which the applicant is seeking in the present action, was inserted by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021/1030 and was applicable without any time limit. 40 Second, the only amendment made to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 on 26 February 2024 was that made by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768. That amendment concerns only Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, which consists of the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the measures freezing funds and economic resources. As the applicant stated expressly in its written pleadings, it is not challenging the individual measures imposed on specific entities. 41 It follows that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1i of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 was neither amended nor supplemented by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 26 February 2024 and has subsequently remained unchanged. In that respect, it should be noted, first, that the time limit for bringing proceedings against [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021/1030 and, therefore, against that provision, had expired several years before the present proceedings were brought and, second, that the adoption of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2024/768 did not have the effect that a new time limit in which to bring proceedings to dispute the legality of that provision began to run for the applicant. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant’s claims directed against the provision in question are out of time and, therefore, inadmissible. 42 In those circumstances, the present head of claim must be rejected, in part as having been brought before a court lacking jurisdiction to hear and determine it and in part as inadmissible. The applicant’s fourth head of claim 43 By the present head of claim, the applicant criticises the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for failing to act following its call to do so of 29 January 2024. 44 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania, submits that the applicant’s call to act received a response on 26 February 2024. It then claims that the present head of claim is inadmissible because it was lodged more than two months and ten days after that response. It also observes that the request was in fact addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rather than to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania claims that that circumstance is significant, because the applicant did not directly call upon the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to act, contrary to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. It concludes as a result that, in those circumstances, an action pursuant to that provision could only be brought against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], since the applicant submitted a call to act to that institution but not to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 45 In the alternative, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that the present head of claim is unfounded. It states, in particular, in essence, that the applicant’s call to act concerns the implementation of the sectoral measure at issue and, as such, falls within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s competence rather than its own. Moreover, it submits that it cannot adopt the provisions requested by the applicant without a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] proposal. It refutes that it is obliged to take a position on the interpretation of EU legislation. Last, it claims that the applicant could have challenged [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021/1030 but failed to do so and therefore can no longer challenge it in the present action. 46 The applicant disputes the arguments of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania. It submits, first, that the present head of claim is admissible, because the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] confined itself to responding to the applicant by general statements, and that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] letter of 26 February 2024 cannot therefore be regarded as a definition of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] position within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. It acknowledges that its call to act was formally addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] but submits that it was also sent to the official email address of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that its examination fell within the competence of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The applicant submits that both the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania have accepted that the letter in question expressed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] position on that call to act. Even assuming that it did not, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] would in that case have failed to define its position on that call to act, and the applicant’s action for failure to act would also have been brought within the time limit. 47 Second, the applicant submits, in essence, that the principles of legal certainty, of transparency and of the legality of criminal offences and penalties required the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to define the term ‘transfer’ clearly. It also claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has a duty to take all necessary measures to ensure fulfilment of the Treaty obligations and the consistency of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] policies and actions and to guarantee compliance with the principles of legality, subsidiarity, proportionality and providing reasons for acts. The applicant refers to an unlawfully broad definition of the term ‘transfer’, which has not been remedied by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In that regard it relies on existing international agreements and the principles of legality, uniform application of EU rules and equal treatment. 48 It must be borne in mind that, pursuant to the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an action for failure to act is admissible only if the institution in question has first been called upon to act. Giving the institution formal notice is an essential procedural requirement the effects of which are, first, to cause the two-month period within which the institution is required to define its position to begin to run and, secondly, to delimit any action that might be brought should the institution fail to define its position (order of 24 June 2016, Onix Asigurări v EIOPA , T‑590/15, EU:T:2016:374, paragraph 32). 49 In the present case, as the applicant acknowledges, its call to act was addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Accordingly, first, the applicant produced a postal receipt dated 29 January 2024, which shows the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as the only addressee. Second, it is clear from the letterhead of that call to act, the form of address and the wording of the applicant’s requests that the applicant was appealing expressly to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Moreover, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not appear even as being copied into that call to act. 50 Although the applicant states that its call to act was, in fact, sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] official email address and therefore was indeed communicated to it, the applicant does not however support that statement with any evidence. 51 Furthermore, the letter from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 26 February 2024 was sent electronically to the applicant, by the cabinet of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. That letter was also signed by the head of cabinet of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 52 In those circumstances, and even though the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was competent to examine the applicant’s requests, it cannot be found to have been called upon to act by the applicant. Nor can it be found that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] answered the applicant, even indirectly, in the letter from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 26 February 2024. 53 Accordingly, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 48 above, it should be found that the requirements laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are not satisfied and that, consequently, the fourth head of claim is inadmissible. 54 In any event, even assuming that the applicant had sent the call to act to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it should be borne in mind that, in order to rule on the substance of a claim of failure to act, it is necessary for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to determine whether, at the time of the call to act, the institution in question was under a duty to act in the manner requested by the applicant in that request (see, to that effect, order of 17 July 2020, Wagenknecht v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑715/19, EU:T:2020:340, paragraph 34). 55 In that regard, first, it should be borne in mind that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has a broad discretion in areas, such as the area of restrictive measures, which involve the making by that institution of political, economic and social choices, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft , C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 113 and the case-law cited). 56 Second it should be noted that, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 215 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acts on a joint proposal from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In the present case, in the absence of any such joint proposal to amend [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could not act on its own initiative. 57 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], contrary to the applicant’s claim, neither [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4(3) TEU nor [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19(1) of the annex to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure (OJ 2009 L 325, p. 35) required the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt an explanatory measure or to amend an existing regulation, such as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006. 58 Fourth, the explanatory measures taken by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in relation to the concept of ‘transfer’ in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 833/2014 or by means of the guidelines comprising document 15579/03 were likewise not such as to give rise to an obligation on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt an explanatory measure or to supplement [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 765/2006 in relation to the restrictive measure in question. Suffice it to note, first, that the restrictive measures laid down by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 833/2014 apply to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and are separate from the restrictive measures applied in respect of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Belarus. Second, the guidelines comprising document 15579/03 merely state that it may be necessary to address the definition of the term ‘transit’. In any event, those guidelines are only general recommendations and have no binding legal effect (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 78). 59 In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had no obligation to act, with the effect that the present head of claim is, in any event, unfounded. 60 It follows from the foregoing that the present head of claim must be rejected. The applicant’s fifth head of claim 61 By the present head of claim, the applicant asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt certain provisions. 62 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the applicant’s request under the present head of claim is inadmissible. The applicant has not responded to those arguments. 63 In the present case, it should be noted, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has observed, that the present head of claim appears to be seeking an injunction. 64 It is settled case-law that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the EU institutions or to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see order of 19 May 2025, Birių Krovinių Terminalas v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], T‑261/24, not published, EU:T:2025:540, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). 65 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the present head of claim must be rejected on the ground that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it. 66 It follows from the foregoing that the action must be dismissed, in part as having been brought before a court that lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it, in part as inadmissible and in part as in any event unfounded. Costs 67 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 68 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter. 69 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania must bear its own costs. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; 3. Orders the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Lithuania to bear its own costs. Kowalik-Bańczyk Reine da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in open court in Luxembourg on 15 July 2026. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.
Sentenza Corte di giustizia UE n. 765/2026 — Fons Iuris — Fons Iuris