Corte di giustizia UE n. 269/2024

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 10 July 2024 ( * ) [Text rectified by order of 24 July 2024] (Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Freezing of funds – Restriction on admission to the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and restrictions on admission to the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1)(a), (f) and (g) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145/CFSP – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(a), (f) and (g) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 – Plea of illegality – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22 and T‑739/22, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Moscow (Russia), represented by G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by J. Rurarz and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of D. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], R. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and I. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. Zwozdziak-Carbonne, Administrator, having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular: –      the application in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22 lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 25 May 2022; –      the application in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22 lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 25 November 2022; –      the statements of modification lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 23 May and 11 November 2023; further to the hearing on 12 December 2023, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By his actions under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the applicant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], seeks (i) in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22, the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 44) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2022/427 of 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 1) (together, ‘the initial acts’), in so far as those acts include his name on the lists of persons and entities set out, respectively, in the annex to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145/CFSP of 17 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16) and in Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6) (‘the lists at issue’), and (ii) in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22, the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1) (together, ‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts’), and, following the first modification of the application, the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2023/571 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1) (together, ‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts’), and, following the second modification of the application, the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 3) (together, ‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts’), in so far as those acts maintain his name on the lists at issue. I. Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is a businessperson of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nationality. 3 The present cases arise in the context of the restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, in particular, in respect of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] military aggression against [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 24 February 2022. 4 On 17 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 29 TEU. That same day, it adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 215 TFEU. 5 On 25 February 2022, in view of the gravity of the situation in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted, first, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2022/329 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1) and, secondly, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2022/330 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1) in order, inter alia, to amend the criteria by which natural or legal persons, entities or bodies could be made subject to the restrictive measures at issue. 6 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) and (2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/329, is worded as follows: ‘1.      All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by: (a)      natural persons responsible for, supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], or stability or security in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], or which obstruct the work of international organisations in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; … (f)      natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; or (g)      leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, as listed in the Annex, shall be frozen. 2.      No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies listed in the Annex.’ 7 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(1)(a), (d) and (e) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/329, prohibits the entry into or transit through the territories of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of natural persons who satisfy essentially the same criteria as those set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1)(a), (f) and (g) of that decision. 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/330, requires the adoption of measures to freeze funds and lays down the detailed rules governing that freezing in terms essentially identical to those of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/329. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(a) to (g) of that regulation largely reproduces [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1)(a) to (g) of that decision. 9 In that context, on 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted the initial acts. 10 By those initial acts, the applicant’s name was added to line 893 of the lists at issue, on the following grounds: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] is the CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG, one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers. Previously (between 2004 and 2020) he was the CEO of a coal company [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. These are major [OSCURATO:PERSONA] companies, co-owned by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] billionaire [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which generate and provide substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. They also cooperate with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities, including [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. EuroChem Group companies supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] signed contracts with Crimean sanatoriums for employee’s health programs. He is therefore supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. On 24 February 2022, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] attended a meeting of oligarchs at the Kremlin with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of Western sanctions. The fact that he was invited to attend that meeting shows that he is a member of the inner circle of oligarchs close to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that he is supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as well as stability and security in [OSCURATO:PERSONA].’ 11 By emails of 31 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 and 7 April 2022, the applicant asked the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to grant him access to the documents on the basis of which the restrictive measures concerning him had been adopted. 12 On 13 April 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the applicant’s emails referred to in paragraph 11 above and forwarded the information contained in the file bearing the reference WK 3052/2022 (‘the first WK file’) and the addendum thereto bearing the reference WK 3645/2022 ADD 1 (‘the addendum’), both dated 12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022. II. Events subsequent to the bringing of the present action 13 On 31 May 2022, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue, claiming that he no longer held the positions giving rise to that listing. 14 On 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts extending the measures taken against the applicant until 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023. Those acts maintained the applicant’s name on the lists at issue on grounds identical to those set out in the initial acts. 15 On 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied to the request for reconsideration of 31 May 2022, refusing that request and stating that it would maintain the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. In particular, it explained that it was still assessing the information to the effect that, on 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022, the applicant had resigned from all of his positions at EuroChem Group AG (‘EuroChem’) and from his non-executive positions at [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 16 By letter of 1 November 2022, the applicant submitted a further request for reconsideration. 17 By email of 22 November 2022, the applicant requested access to the documents postdating the first WK file and the addendum thereto on which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had relied. 18 By email of 25 November 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied that there were no other documents besides those contained in the first WK file and the addendum thereto. 19 By letter of 22 December 2022, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the applicant of its intention to maintain the restrictive measures against him and forwarded the information in the file bearing the reference WK 17625/2022 INIT, dated 14 December 2022 (‘the second WK file’). 20 On 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts extending the application of the restrictive measures against the applicant until 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023. The grounds for including his name on the lists at issue were amended as follows: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] is the former CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG, having formally resigned from that position when listed under restrictive measures by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], whilst he continues to exert influence through shell companies. EuroChem is one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers. Previously (between 2004 and 2020) he was the CEO of a coal company [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. These are major [OSCURATO:PERSONA] companies – co-owned by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the wife of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] billionaire [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – which generate and provide substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. They also cooperate with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities, including [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. EuroChem Group companies supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] signed contracts with Crimean sanatoriums for employee’s health programs. He is therefore supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. On 24 February 2022, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] attended a meeting of oligarchs at the Kremlin with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to discuss the impact of the course of action in the wake of Western sanctions. The fact that he was invited to attend that meeting shows that he is a member of the inner circle of oligarchs close to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that he is supporting or implementing actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as well as stability and security in [OSCURATO:PERSONA].’ 21 By letter of 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the applicant that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts maintained his name on the lists at issue. 22 On 31 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], at the applicant’s request, sent him the second WK file, which was unchanged from the file previously sent and referred to in paragraph 19 above. 23 The criterion laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1)(g) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(g) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 (‘criterion (g)’) for the inclusion on the lists at issue of the names of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures was amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 (OJ 2023 L 146, p. 20) and by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2023/1089 of 5 June 2023 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 (OJ 2023 L 146, p. 1). It follows from the new wording of criterion (g) (‘criterion (g) as amended’) that it applies to ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them, or businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 24 By letter of 19 June 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] notified the applicant of its intention to maintain the restrictive measures against him and also forwarded to him working documents WK 8089/2023 INIT of 14 June 2023 and WK 8179/2023 INIT of 15 June 2023 (together ‘the third WK file’), which were identical, containing six new items of evidence. On 3 July 2023, the applicant replied to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s letter of 19 June 2023 with his observations. 25 On 10 July 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] sent a further letter to the applicant informing him that it was considering the possibility of maintaining the restrictive measures against him, on amended grounds. It also enclosed working document WK 8987/2023 of 30 June 2023 (‘the fourth WK file’) with that letter. On 24 July 2023, the applicant submitted observations on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s letter of 10 July 2023. 26 By the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] maintained the applicant’s name on the lists at issue on the same grounds as those referred to in paragraph 20 above. 27 On 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the applicant that his name would be maintained on the lists at issue. On 24 October 2023, in response to a request from the applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed him that all the documents on which the maintenance of his name on the lists was based had already been sent to him. III. Forms of order sought 28 The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        annul the initial acts, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts (‘the contested acts’) in so far as they concern him; –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 29 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22, dismiss the action as inadmissible in so far as it is directed at the annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427; –        dismiss the remainder of the actions as unfounded; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. IV. Law 30 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] hearing the views of the parties in that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has decided to join the present cases for the purposes of the judgment, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. A. Admissibility 31 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argues that the application made by the applicant in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22 seeking annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 is inadmissible on the ground that it is out of time. 32 The applicant disputes that plea of inadmissibility and states that, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for bringing an action, he may challenge the lawfulness of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 indirectly, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 TFEU. 33 In that regard, it should be noted that the applicant seeks annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427, both in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22 and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22, in which he also seeks, in particular, annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/1529. 34 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the sixth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, proceedings for annulment must be instituted within two months of the publication of the contested measure, or of its notification to the applicant or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be. In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 59 of the Rules of Procedure, 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] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , that time limit is to run from the end of the fourteenth day after such publication. In accordance with the provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 60 of those rules, that time limit must also be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days. 35 In the present case, as is apparent from paragraph 12 above, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] sent a letter to the applicant on 13 April 2022 expressly referring to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 and enclosing the first WK file and the addendum. The view must therefore be taken that the applicant became aware of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 on 13 April 2022 at the latest. The application in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22 was lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] more than seven months after that date, on 25 November 2022. Thus, the claim for annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22 was submitted out of time and must be dismissed as inadmissible. 36 As regards, moreover, the applicant’s argument challenging the lawfulness of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 TFEU, it should be recalled that that provision gives expression to the general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to challenge indirectly, in seeking annulment of a decision addressed to that party, the validity of acts of general application which form the basis of such a decision, if that party was not entitled under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to ask that they be annulled (see judgment of 17 February 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑14/14 and T‑87/14, EU:T:2017:102, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). 37 In the present case, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 in no way constitutes the basis for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, which is a prerequisite if a plea of illegality is to be raised against an act of general application. 38 It follows from the foregoing that the applicant’s claim for annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/427 must be rejected as inadmissible, in so far as that claim is submitted in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22. B. Substance 39 In support of his action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22, the applicant relies, in essence, on two pleas in law, alleging (i) infringement of the obligation to state reasons, and (ii) an error of assessment. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22, he puts forward five pleas in law, alleging (i) that the provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1)(f) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145, as amended, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(f) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014, as amended, (‘criterion (f)’) and the provisions laying down criterion (g) and criterion (g) as amended are unlawful, (ii) an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, (iii) an error of assessment, (iv) that the penalty is of a criminal nature and a misuse of powers, and (v) an infringement of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights. In the first statement of modification, the applicant also puts forward a sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration. 1. The plea in law alleging that some criteria are unlawful 40 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22, the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of criteria (f) and (g). In the first place, he submits that the restrictive measures at issue disregard [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21 TEU. 41 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant argues that, in accordance with the objective of fostering the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries with the aim of eradicating poverty, set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21(2)(d) TEU, the imposition of restrictive measures on leading businesspersons holding positions in undertakings active in the production of fertilisers is precluded, so as to avoid causing food shortages and, therefore, famine. The reference to EuroChem, which is the world’s second-largest producer of fertilisers, in the grounds for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue had economic consequences for EuroChem and contributed to the introduction of trade barriers in the internal market of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 42 Secondly, the applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s decision to halt coal imports from Russia and, therefore, to import coal from Brazil and Australia makes transport routes longer and increases carbon dioxide emissions, which is also at odds with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21(2)(f) TEU. Thirdly, by failing to meet the listing criteria, the restrictive measures at issue disregard [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21(2)(b) TEU, which protects, inter alia, human rights. 43 In the second place, the applicant submits that criteria (f) and (g) are unlawful and should be declared inapplicable under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 TFEU since, first, they fail to establish a link between the persons targeted and the war in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], thus conferring unlimited discretion on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Secondly, those criteria are not sufficiently precise, as the terms used in those provisions are not defined and are open to different interpretations. Criterion (f), by referring to persons ‘supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from’ the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], could potentially cover any [OSCURATO:PERSONA] official or even any [OSCURATO:PERSONA] retiree. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], criterion (g) could apply to any wealthy person of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nationality. Thirdly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applies those criteria in a discriminatory manner. Accordingly, the provisions laying down those criteria lack clarity and predictability and do not respect the rule of law. 44 In the first statement of modification, the applicant adds that the criterion laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1)(a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/329, and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(a) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014, as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022/330 (‘criterion (a)’), is too vague and also infringes the principle of legality. 45 In the second statement of modification, which refers, in essence, to the application to the applicant of criteria (a), (f) and (g) as amended, the applicant claims that he has consistently criticised the lack of clarity of the criteria. 46 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. 47 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 TFEU, any party may, in proceedings in which an act of general application adopted by an institution, body, office or agency of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is at issue, plead the grounds specified in the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU in order to invoke before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the inapplicability of that act. 48 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 277 TFEU gives expression to the general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to challenge indirectly, in seeking annulment of a decision addressed to that party, the validity of acts of general application which form the basis of such a decision, if that party was not entitled under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to ask that they be annulled. The general measure claimed to be illegal must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the issue with which the action is concerned and there must be a direct legal connection between the contested individual decision and the general measure in question (see judgment of 17 February 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑14/14 and T‑87/14, EU:T:2017:102, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). 49 According to settled case-law, the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must, in accordance with the powers conferred on them by the FEU Treaty, ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all EU acts in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] legal order. That obligation is expressly laid down by the second paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 275 TFEU (see judgments of 28 November 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Fulmen and Mahmoudian , C‑280/12 P, EU:C:2013:775, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited, and of 28 November 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] & [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited). 50 The fact remains that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] enjoys a broad discretion as regards the general and abstract definition of the legal criteria and procedures for adopting restrictive measures (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑605/13 P, EU:C:2015:248, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). Consequently, rules of general application defining those criteria and procedures – such as the provisions of the acts laying down the criteria at issue concerned by this plea in law – are subject to a limited judicial review, restricted to checking that the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons have been complied with, that the facts are materially accurate, that there has been no error of law, and that there has been no manifest error of assessment of the facts or misuse of power (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 July 2009, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑246/08 and T‑332/08, EU:T:2009:266, paragraphs 44 and 45, and of 12 February 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraph 149 (not published)). 51 Moreover, the principle of legal certainty requires that EU legislation must be certain and its application foreseeable by those subject to it (see judgments of 5 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2015, Europäisch-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑585/13 P, EU:C:2015:145, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited, and of 17 February 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑14/14 and T‑87/14, EU:T:2017:102, paragraph 192 and the case-law cited). 52 In the present case, criteria (g) and (f) provide for the freezing of funds and economic resources of: ‘(f)      natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; or (g)      leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 53 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], following the amendment introduced by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023/1094 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023/1089, criterion (g) as amended allows restrictive measures to be imposed on ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them, or businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 54 In the first place, first, it should be observed that it is unequivocally clear from the very wording of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014 that criterion (f) is aimed in a targeted and selective manner at natural and legal persons who, even if they have no actual connection with the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], support, materially or financially, or benefit from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] responsible for such destabilisation. Criterion (f) thus consists of two elements, namely the provision of material or financial support to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the fact of benefitting from that government, those two elements being alternative. 55 Secondly, criterion (g) is aimed in a sufficiently clear and precise manner at, inter alia, leading businesspersons involved in sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In the light of the wording of that criterion, the persons concerned must be regarded as leading persons on account of their importance in the sectors in which they operate and the importance of those sectors for the economy (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2018, Rosneft and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑715/14, not published, EU:T:2018:544, paragraph 157). 56 Thirdly, the same is true of criterion (g) as amended, which is aimed, on the one hand, at leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them, and, on the other, at businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and pursuing the same ends. 57 In addition, it should be noted that the restrictive measures at issue form part of the objectives pursued by the overall strategy of responding in a rapid, united, graduated and coordinated manner, implemented by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], through the adoption of a series of restrictive measures, with the ultimate aim of exerting maximum pressure on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities so that they bring an end to their actions and policies destabilising [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to the military aggression against [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. From that perspective, the restrictive measures at issue are consistent with the objective, referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21(2)(c) TEU, of preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] signed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 26 June 1945 (judgment of 27 July 2022, RT France v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑125/22, EU:T:2022:483, paragraph 163). Moreover, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s discretion must also be assessed in the light of the objective pursued by the restrictive measures, namely to put pressure on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in order to diminish its ability to finance actions undermining [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2018, Rosneft and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑715/14, not published, EU:T:2018:544, paragraph 158). 58 In that regard, there is a rational connection between, on the one hand, the targeting of leading businesspersons operating in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in view of the importance of those sectors for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] economy, and, on the other, the objective of the restrictive measures in the present case, which is to increase pressure on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to increase the costs of actions to undermine [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2018, Rosneft and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑715/14, not published, EU:T:2018:544, paragraph 157 and the case-law cited). In the same vein, there is also a rational connection between targeting natural persons who support, materially or financially, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that objective. That is also the case as regards criterion (g) as amended, which is aimed, on the one hand, at leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them, and, on the other, at businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 59 Moreover, the discretion conferred on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by the criteria at issue is offset by an obligation to state reasons and strengthened procedural rights (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2014, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑578/12, not published, EU:T:2014:678, paragraph 122 and the case-law cited). 60 It must therefore be held, as regards criterion (g), criterion (f) and criterion (g) as amended, that the discretion conferred on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in assessing what is covered by the concepts, first, of ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia’ and ‘economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue’ and, secondly, of ‘supporting, materially or financially’ or ‘benefitting’ cannot be regarded as falling short of the degree of foreseeability required by EU law. 61 The complaint alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty must therefore be rejected. 62 Accordingly, in so far as the complaints alleging infringement of the rule of law, of the principle of proportionality, of the right to property and of the principle of legality are based solely on the lack of foreseeability and clarity of the criteria at issue, those complaints must also be rejected. 63 In the second place, it must be stated that the applicant’s complaint that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applies the criteria at issue in a discriminatory manner relates to the examination of the applicant’s individual situation and not to the lawfulness of the listing criteria. Similarly, by his arguments alleging infringement of the objectives referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21 TEU, the applicant questions the effect on the global food situation of taking restrictive measures against him. Thus, such a line of argument is concerned with the question whether the individual restrictive measures taken against the applicant are well founded, not with whether the criteria at issue are lawful. 64 In the third place, as regards the applicant’s argument raised in the first statement of modification to the effect that criterion (a) is too vague, suffice it to note that the statement of modification in no way substantiates that argument, which must therefore be rejected. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it must be stated that the argument that the meeting of 24 February 2022 does not provide sufficient grounds for the applicant’s listing under that criterion also relates to the examination of the plea in law alleging an error of assessment. 65 Accordingly, the first plea in law, alleging that criteria (f) and (g) are unlawful, must be rejected. 2. The plea in law alleging a failure to state reasons 66 With regard to the initial acts, the applicant submits that the grounds for listing do not expressly refer to the criteria laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014. 67 In his action against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, first, the applicant states that he cannot understand why his name was maintained on the lists at issue given that he did not hold the positions for which he was ‘condemned’. Secondly, he argues that the complete lack of any reference to the listing criteria in the grounds for listing cannot be offset by the fact that he ‘guess[ed]’ the ‘relevant’ listing criteria in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22. The applicant also states that the letter of 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 referred to in the defence is of no assistance, since the statement of reasons must be included in the contested act itself. In the first statement of modification, the applicant adds that, although the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts appears at first sight to be different, it does not actually put forward any new legal grounds. 68 In the second statement of modification, in the first place, the applicant submits that the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts shows that the listing of his name was based solely on criteria (a) and (f), and that the wording of that statement of reasons never explicitly reproduced criterion (g) and gave rise to uncertainty. He also maintains that, as is apparent from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s letter of 10 July 2023, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had intended to amend the statement of reasons in order to add a sentence which would have expressly stated that he was a businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. However, no such sentence was included in the grounds on which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts are based, which remained unchanged. 69 In the second place, the applicant asserts that the wording of criterion (g) as amended draws a distinction between, on the one hand, ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia’ and, on the other, ‘businesspersons … involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. Thus, he submits that he is not able to ascertain from the statement of reasons which of those two categories concerns him, giving rise to legal uncertainty. Therefore, as from at least the adoption of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts, the applicant’s name is not listed under criterion (g) as amended. 70 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. 71 According to the case-law, the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an act adversely affecting an individual is based, which is a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, is, first, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the act is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit its legality to be contested before the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, secondly, to enable those Courts to review the legality of that act (judgment of 15 November 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Bamba , C‑417/11 P, EU:C:2012:718, paragraph 49). 72 The statement of reasons required by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the measure at issue and the context in which it was adopted. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. In particular, it is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law or to provide a detailed answer to the considerations set out by the person concerned when consulted prior to the adoption of that same measure, since the question whether the statement of reasons is sufficient must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. Consequently, the reasons given for a measure adversely affecting a person are sufficient if that measure was adopted in a context which was known to that person and which enables him or her to understand the scope of the measure concerning him or her (judgment of 22 April 2021, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v PKK , C‑46/19 P, EU:C:2021:316, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 15 November 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Bamba , C‑417/11 P, EU:C:2012:718, paragraph 53). 73 Thus, first, the reasons given for a decision adversely affecting a person are sufficient if that decision was adopted in circumstances known to the party concerned which enable him or her to understand the scope of the measure concerning him or her. Secondly, the degree of precision of the statement of the reasons for a measure must be weighed against practical realities and the time and technical facilities available for taking the measure (see judgment of 27 July 2022, RT France v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑125/22, EU:T:2022:483, paragraph 104 and the case-law cited). 74 In addition, it has been made clear in the case-law that the statement of reasons for an act of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which imposed a restrictive measure had not only to identify the legal basis for that measure but also the actual and specific reasons why the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considered, in the exercise of its discretion, that such a measure had to be adopted in respect of the person concerned (see judgment of 27 July 2022, RT France v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑125/22, EU:T:2022:483, paragraph 105 and the case-law cited). 75 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it must be stated that the absence of an explicit reference to the criterion applied to a person does not necessarily entail an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, provided that it is sufficiently clear from reading the statement of reasons adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which criterion it applied in respect of that person (judgment of 11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2019, Topor-Gilka and WO Technopromexport v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑721/17 and T‑722/17, not published, EU:T:2019:579, paragraph 79; see also, to that effect, judgment of 30 November 2016, Rotenberg v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑720/14, EU:T:2016:689, paragraph 51). However, such explicit reference is indispensable where, in its absence, the parties concerned and the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are left uncertain as to the precise legal basis (judgment of 25 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑563/12, EU:T:2015:187, paragraph 68). 76 Finally, it is important to note that the question of the statement of reasons, which concerns an essential procedural requirement, is separate from that of the evidence of the alleged conduct, which concerns the substantive legality of the act in question and involves assessing the truth of the facts set out in that act and the characterisation of those facts as evidence justifying the use of restrictive measures against the person concerned (see judgment of 6 October 2015, Chyzh and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑276/12, not published, EU:T:2015:748, paragraph 111 and the case-law cited). 77 In the present case, the statement of reasons relied on in relation to the applicant in the contested acts coincides with that set out in paragraphs 10, 20 and 26 above. 78 In the first place, it should be noted that the general context which led the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to adopt the restrictive measures at issue is set out in the recitals of the contested acts. Similarly, those acts indicate the legal basis on which the measures were adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], namely [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 29 TEU and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 215 TFEU respectively. 79 In the second place, as regards the statement of reasons for the initial acts and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, first, it should be noted that the reasons for those acts state that the applicant is the chief executive officer (CEO) and director of EuroChem, one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers, and that, previously, he was the CEO of the coal company [OSCURATO:PERSONA], companies presented as major [OSCURATO:PERSONA] companies which generate and provide substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Thus, those reasons enabled the applicant to understand that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had applied criterion (g) to him and the grounds on which that criterion had been applied to him. Secondly, in the statement of reasons for the initial acts and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts concerning the applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] indicated that EuroChem companies had supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas and that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had signed contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea for employee health programmes, before stating that the applicant’s invitation to participate in the meeting of 24 February 2022 showed that he was a member of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] inner circle and that he supported or implemented actions or policies which undermined or threatened the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], or stability or security in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. That part of the statement of reasons, which essentially refers to the wording of criterion (a), enables the applicant to ascertain that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applied such a criterion to him and to ascertain why it did so. Thirdly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] expressly stated that the applicant supported, materially or financially, and benefitted from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which corresponds in essence to criterion (f). 80 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Therefore, it must be held that, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 75 above, even in the absence of an express reference to the criteria for inclusion on the lists at issue, it is possible to ascertain from reading the statement of reasons relied on by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in relation to the applicant in the initial acts and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts which criteria were applied in order to include his name on the lists at issue, without there being any infringement of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s obligation to state reasons. 81 In the third place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the wording of the statement of reasons never explicitly reproduced criterion (g), it must be pointed out that, as the applicant asserts in paragraph 60 of the application in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22, the first paragraph of the statement of reasons relied on against him includes the expression ‘which generate and provide substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, which refers, to some degree, to criterion (g). In addition, in the application in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22, the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of, inter alia, criterion (g) and submits, in essence, that that criterion is too vague to serve as a legal basis for the restrictive measures against him. The applicant’s argument must therefore be rejected. 82 In the fourth place, concerning the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts, the amendment of criterion (g) cannot be considered to be so extensive that the applicant could no longer clearly discern that that criterion continued to apply to him. Although criterion (g) as amended comprises two parts, namely, first, ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia’ and, secondly, ‘businesspersons … involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, the second part differs from criterion (g) as worded prior to the amendment introduced by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023/1094 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023/1089 only in the deletion of the word ‘leading’. It follows from recital 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023/1094 that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] intended to broaden the designation criteria in order to increase pressure on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 83 Consequently, as regards the applicant’s arguments concerning the complete lack of any reference to the listing criteria and the discrepancy between the criteria arising from the contested acts and those set out in the first WK file, the applicant cannot reasonably claim that that led to confusion as to the precise understanding of the criteria on which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] intended to base its decision. In addition, the fact that criterion (f) is not mentioned in the first WK file as having served as the basis for listing the applicant’s name is irrelevant. The reasons set out in the contested acts reproduce that criterion word for word, namely the fact that the applicant ‘is therefore supporting, materially or financially, … the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. Moreover, the applicant himself admits that the reference to criterion (f) is clear. 84 In the fifth place, as regards the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts, it should be noted that the applicant does not deny that it is apparent from reading them that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] maintained his name on the lists at issue on the basis of criteria (a), (f) and (g). [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the actual and specific reasons which prompted the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to maintain the applicant’s listing are set out in a sufficiently clear manner enabling him to understand them. 85 In the last place, the applicant’s argument that he does not understand why restrictive measures were taken against him given that he no longer holds the positions which justified the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue does not specifically seek to call into question the adequacy of the statement of reasons for the contested acts, but rather the substantive lawfulness of those acts. 86 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Accordingly, the statement of reasons for the contested acts is comprehensible and sufficiently precise to enable the applicant to ascertain the reasons which led the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to consider that the inclusion and maintenance of his name on the lists at issue were justified and to challenge the lawfulness thereof before the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and to enable the latter to exercise their power of review, in accordance with the rules referred to in paragraphs 71 to 76 above. 87 Such a finding is, moreover, fully confirmed by the arguments raised by the applicant in his pleadings, from which it is apparent, first, that he was put in a position whereby he was able to ascertain the reasons for the measures taken against him so that he could challenge them effectively before the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by identifying criteria (a), (f), (g) and (g) as amended as the basis for including and maintaining his name on the lists at issue, and, secondly, that he was aware of the context of those measures. 88 Accordingly, the applicant’s plea in law alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons must be rejected. 3. The plea in law alleging errors of assessment 89 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of all, it is important to note that this plea must be regarded as alleging an error of assessment and not a manifest error of assessment. While it is true that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has a degree of discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the legal criteria on which the restrictive measures at issue are based are met, the fact remains that the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all EU acts (see judgment of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited). 90 Next, it should be borne in mind that the effectiveness of the judicial review guaranteed by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 47 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requires in particular that the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ensure that the decision by which restrictive measures were adopted or maintained, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. That entails a verification of the factual allegations in the summary of reasons underpinning that decision, with the consequence that judicial review cannot be restricted to an assessment of the cogency in the abstract of the reasons relied on, but must concern the question whether those reasons, or, at the very least, one of those reasons, deemed sufficient in itself to support that decision, is substantiated (judgment of 18 July 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v Kadi , C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 119). 91 It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the reasons relied on against the person or entity concerned are well founded, and not the task of that person or entity to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded (judgments of 18 July 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v Kadi , C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraph 121, and of 3 July 2014, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑565/12, EU:T:2014:608, paragraph 57). 92 The assessment as to whether those reasons are well founded must be carried out by examining the evidence and information not in isolation but in their context. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] discharges the burden of proof borne by it if it presents to the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that there is a sufficient link between the person subject to a measure freezing his or her funds and the regime being combated (judgment of 21 April 2015, Anbouba v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑630/13 P, EU:C:2015:247, paragraph 53). 93 It is in the light of those principles of case-law that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must determine whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] made an error of assessment in considering that, in the present case, there was a sufficiently solid factual basis capable of justifying (i) the initial listing, and (ii) the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. (a) The initial acts (1) The evidence 94 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, in order to justify the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, the first WK file and the addendum thereto provided by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contain 10 items of evidence, namely: –        an extract from the Twitter account of a journalist dated February 2022 (Exhibit 1); –        an article announcing the applicant’s appointment as CEO of EuroChem published on the company’s website on 7 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2020 (Exhibit 2); –        a page from EuroChem’s website accessed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 28 February 2022 presenting the EuroChem Group’s management committee and containing a short biography of the applicant (Exhibit 3); –        a biography of the applicant published on the website ‘tadviser.com’ (Exhibit 4); –        an article in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from the news agency ‘tass.ru’ published on 27 April 2021 (Exhibit 5); –        an article published on [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s website in February 2020 (Exhibit 5a); –        a photo published on the Sputnik website on 7 February 2018 (Exhibit 6); –        an article published on the website ‘cbonds.com’ on 11 October 2021 (Exhibit 7); –        an article published on the website ‘open4business.com’ on 3 February 2018 (Exhibit 8); –        an article published by the Centre for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 7 February 2022 describing EuroChem as one of the largest producers of fertilisers (Exhibit 10). 95 The applicant argues that the first WK file and the addendum thereto contain inaccuracies and are vague. In terms of content, they are nothing more than an insubstantial compilation of materials from social media which have very little to do with the applicant. The applicant questions the relevance of all the exhibits produced to justify the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue in the light of the grounds for listing, since no link has been established between the content of those exhibits and criteria (a), (f) and (g) on which that listing was based. 96 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. 97 It should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the activity of the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is governed by the principle of the unfettered assessment of the evidence, and it is only the reliability of the evidence before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which is decisive when it comes to the assessment of its value. In that regard, in order to assess the probative value of a document, regard must be had to the credibility of the information it contains, taking account in particular of the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on its face, the document appears to be sound and reliable (see judgments of 31 May 2018, Kaddour v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑461/16, EU:T:2018:316, paragraph 107 and the case-law cited, and of 12 February 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑163/18, EU:T:2020:57, paragraph 95 (not published) and the case-law cited). 98 In the absence of investigative powers in third countries, the assessment of the EU authorities must rely on publicly available sources of information, reports, articles in the press, intelligence reports or other similar sources of information (judgments of 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2018, Kim and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑533/15 and T‑264/16, EU:T:2018:138, paragraph 107, and of 1 June 2022, Prigozhin v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑723/20, not published, EU:T:2022:317, paragraph 59). 99 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it must be noted that the situation of conflict in which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are involved makes it extremely difficult in practice to access certain sources, to expressly state the primary source of certain information and to potentially gather evidence from persons who are prepared to be identified. The ensuing investigative difficulties may therefore constitute a barrier to the production of precise evidence and objective information (see judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 116 and the case-law cited). 100 In the present case, contrary to what the applicant claims, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not rely on an insubstantial compilation of materials from social media, since it produced, among other things, screenshots from the websites of EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Exhibits 2, 3 and 5a) and from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] news agencies (Exhibits 5 and 6). 101 The arguments by which the applicant calls into question the reliability or relevance of certain specific exhibits, in particular Exhibits 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, will be addressed, where appropriate, in the context of the examination of whether the grounds for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue are well founded. (2) Criterion (g) 102 The applicant maintains that he cannot be regarded as a ‘leading’ businessperson as it has not been shown that he was closely associated with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] regime. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], he disputes the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s assertion that the word ‘leading’ should be understood as meaning ‘important’ rather than ‘capable of influencing’. According to the applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] merely stated that he was the CEO and director of EuroChem and, between 2004 and 2020, the CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Moreover, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not substantiated its claim that EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] were major [OSCURATO:PERSONA] undertakings providing substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In that connection, first, the applicant submits that EuroChem is a company which has its registered office in Switzerland, operates in many countries and makes most of its sales outside Russia. Its net revenue in respect of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is negative. Secondly, the applicant states that he stood down from all executive positions at [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in May 2020 and that his role within the company between 18 May 2020 and 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 was limited to a non-executive position on the board of directors. 103 The applicant also submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was required to demonstrate that the person in question or the sector in which that person operates provides a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not proved that EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provided a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The applicant adds that restrictive measures cannot be based solely on the fact that an entity is a prominent taxpayer and that it cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the applicant was a senior manager at major companies that he provided substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Lastly, the contribution made by EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was minimal. 104 In his reply, the applicant argues that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not adduced any evidence of the substantial revenue generated by the fertiliser or coal sectors for the benefit of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 105 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. 106 It should be recalled that the applicant’s name was included on the lists at issue on the basis of criterion (g), on the grounds that he was ‘the CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG, one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers’ and that ‘previously (between 2004 and 2020) he was the CEO of a coal company [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] being, according to those grounds, ‘major [OSCURATO:PERSONA] companies … which generate and provide substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 107 In the first place, as regards the classification of the applicant as a ‘leading businessperson’, it should be noted that criterion (g) encompasses the concept of ‘leading businesspersons’ in connection with the exercise of an activity ‘in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, with no other condition regarding ties, be they direct or indirect, with that government. The purpose of that criterion is in fact to exert maximum pressure on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities so that they bring an end to their actions and policies destabilising [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the military aggression against that country (see, by analogy, judgment of 27 July 2022, RT France v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑125/22, EU:T:2022:483, paragraph 163 and the case-law cited). 108 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] As recalled in paragraph 58 above, there is a rational connection between the targeting of leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the objective of the restrictive measures in the present case, which is to increase the pressure on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to increase the costs of the latter’s actions to undermine [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. 109 However, there is nothing in the recitals or the provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 or of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014, as worded when the initial acts were adopted, to support the conclusion that it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to demonstrate the existence of close ties or interdependence between, on the one hand, the person included on the lists at issue and, on the other, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or its actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 140). 110 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as stated in paragraph 55 above, in the light of the wording of criterion (g), the persons concerned must be regarded as leading persons on account of their importance in the sector in which they operate and the importance of that sector for the economy. 111 In the present case, the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson is apparent from Exhibits 2 and 3, taken from EuroChem’s website. Those exhibits show that, on the date of adoption of the initial acts, the applicant was the CEO and director of the EuroChem Group. In addition, EuroChem is described as a leading producer of fertilisers, with more than 27 000 employees worldwide. It is also apparent from those items of evidence that the group is vertically integrated with activities ranging from mining to the production of fertilisers, logistics and distribution. Moreover, it is stated in the exhibits that the applicant became CEO of EuroChem following his resignation, in May 2020, as CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a leading coal and energy company on whose board of directors he still sits as a member. 112 Accordingly, the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson when the initial acts included his name on the lists at issue is sufficiently clear from the position he held at EuroChem and from the importance of that company within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] economy, and is confirmed by his previous position as CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], even though he no longer held that position when the initial acts were adopted. 113 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant’s status as a leading businessperson is also borne out by Exhibits 1 and 6, the content of which he does not dispute, according to which he attended meetings in the presence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], on 7 February 2018, as CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and on 24 February 2022, the day after the invasion of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as CEO of EuroChem. 114 Consequently, in the light of all of those considerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finds that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not make an error of assessment in considering that, on the date of adoption of the initial acts, the applicant was a leading businessperson within the meaning of criterion (g). 115 That finding cannot be called into question by the applicant’s argument that his membership of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s board of directors is a non-executive position. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant was undeniably a leading businessperson on the date of adoption of the initial acts, having regard solely to his position as CEO of EuroChem. Secondly, the honorary nature of that position is not substantiated. 116 In the second place, as regards the economic sector at issue, it is clear from criterion (g) that it is the sector, and not the natural or legal person whose name is included on the lists at issue, which must provide a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 117 In the present case, by making clear, in the statement of reasons, that EuroChem is one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] identified the relevant economic sector, namely the fertiliser sector. 118 As regards whether that sector provides a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it should be noted, first of all, that Exhibit 10 attests to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] expansion on the market for nitrogen-based fertilisers, the production of which is particularly profitable in Russia due to regulated gas prices, the importance of natural gas in the production of that type of fertiliser and the fact that EuroChem benefits from such low [OSCURATO:PERSONA] gas prices. It is apparent from that exhibit that EuroChem is one of the world’s largest fertiliser producers and that, despite being based in Switzerland, most of its production is concentrated in Russia. Contrary to what is suggested by the applicant, who in no way disputes the information contained in Exhibit 10, there is nothing to cast doubt on the credibility of that exhibit or of the Centre for [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an independent research institute established in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in Warsaw (Poland), which published that article. 119 Next, Exhibit 2 confirms that EuroChem is a world leader in the production of nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilisers. Similarly, Exhibit 7 refers to EuroChem’s particularly high revenue, since it is apparent from that exhibit that its [OSCURATO:PERSONA] subsidiary alone reported profits of 51.15 billion [OSCURATO:PERSONA] roubles (RUB) (approximately EUR 600 million) for the first nine months of 2021 and a total increase in revenue of 39.46%. 120 Finally, it transpires from the international nature of the commercial trade mentioned in Exhibits 2, 8 and 10 that the fertiliser sector generates substantial exports and, consequently, an inflow of liquidity. 121 It follows from the foregoing that, on the date of adoption of the initial acts, the applicant was a leading businessperson involved in a sector, the fertiliser sector, which provided a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 122 Having regard to the preventive nature of decisions adopting restrictive measures, if the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] consider that, at the very least, one of the reasons mentioned is sufficiently detailed and specific, that it is substantiated and that it constitutes in itself sufficient basis to support that decision, the fact that the same cannot be said of other such reasons cannot justify the annulment of that decision (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 November 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] & [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑348/12 P, EU:C:2013:776, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited). 123 Accordingly, without there being any need to examine the merits of the other complaints raised by the applicant seeking to call into question the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue under criteria (a) and (f), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must reject the plea in law alleging an error of assessment in so far as it is directed, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22, at the initial acts and, therefore, it must dismiss the action in its entirety in that case. (b) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts 124 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] As a preliminary point, it is clear that the reasons for maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue are the same as the reasons given in the initial acts. It should be added that, in order to justify maintaining the applicant’s name on those lists in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relied on the same evidence as that contained in the first WK file and the addendum thereto (see paragraph 18 above). 125 It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether all the evidence adduced by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] discharges the burden of proof borne by it and constitutes a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the grounds for listing in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts. (1) Criterion (g) 126 The applicant states that, on the day on which the initial acts were adopted, he resigned from all of the positions he held at EuroChem and from the position he still held on [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s board of directors. Therefore, the ground relating to his status as a leading businessperson is in no way adapted to the new facts. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] thus maintained the restrictive measures at issue against the applicant, measures which were supposed to be provisional, without carrying out an updated assessment of the situation or adducing evidence establishing a sufficient link between the applicant and the situation giving rise to the restrictive measures. 127 The applicant adds that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s argument that he maintained his positions at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (‘the RSPP’) was not mentioned in the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, with the result that that argument is not relevant in the context of reviewing the legality of the restrictive measures. 128 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. 129 In the first place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that, despite standing down, the applicant continues to be a leading businessperson. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], he chose to resign rather than to change the behaviour or status which justified the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue, which suggests that he tried to avoid the restrictive measures against him. In addition, he maintained his positions as a member of the board of the RSPP, as chair of the RSPP’s [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as deputy chair of the Committee on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and as head of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. According to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it follows that the applicant has not ceased to be a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] businessperson operating in the energy sector, irrespective of the fact that he is no longer CEO of EuroChem or a member of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s board of directors. Consequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] carried out an updated assessment before adopting the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts and considered that the same conclusion could be drawn as in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022. The objectives of the restrictive measures, namely to put an end to the unlawful military aggression against [OSCURATO:PERSONA], has not yet been achieved and the reference to past conduct or previous positions cannot be irrelevant solely because that conduct and those positions date from the more or less remote past. 130 In the second place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the applicant was active in the mining and energy sectors, which provides a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 131 It should be borne in mind that restrictive measures are of a precautionary and, by definition, provisional nature, the validity of which always depends on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to their adoption continue to apply and on the need to persist with them in order to achieve their aims. Thus, when periodically reviewing those restrictive measures, it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to carry out an updated assessment of the situation and to take stock of the effects of those measures, with a view to determining whether they have made it possible to achieve the objectives pursued by the initial inclusion of the names of the persons and entities concerned on the list at issue or whether it is still possible to reach the same conclusion in relation to those persons and entities (see judgment of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited). 132 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in order to justify maintaining a person’s name on the list, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not prohibited from basing its decision on the same evidence justifying the initial inclusion, re-inclusion or previous retention of the name of the person concerned on the list, provided that (i) the grounds for inclusion remain unchanged and (ii) the context has not changed in such a way that that evidence is now out of date. That context includes not only the situation of the country in respect of which the system of restrictive measures has been established, but also the particular situation of the person concerned (see judgment of 26 October 2022, Ovsyannikov v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑714/20, not published, EU:T:2022:674, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited). 133 It should be noted at the outset that, while it is true that the general context of the situation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as regards the threats to its territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence did not change between the adoption of the initial acts and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, the same cannot be said as regards the applicant’s situation, owing to his resignation from the positions he held at EuroChem. 134 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] It is therefore necessary to determine whether, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 131 and 132 above, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took proper account of the changes in the applicant’s situation when deciding to maintain his name on the lists at issue, whether his particular situation did not change in such a way that the evidence is now out of date, and whether it is apparent from the first WK file and the addendum thereto that the applicant could still be classified, on the date of adoption of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, as a leading businessperson within the meaning of criterion (g) or, at the very least, whether the evidence in that file could constitute a body of evidence for that purpose, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 92 above. 135 In the first place, it is clear that the factual basis underpinning the ground relied on in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts in respect of the applicant, which relates to criterion (g), refers exclusively to his former position as CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to his positions as CEO and director of EuroChem. 136 The applicant denies that, when the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts were adopted, he was still the CEO and director of EuroChem, because he resigned from those positions on 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022, which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acknowledges in the present proceedings. In addition, it appears that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had been aware, at least since 31 May 2022, that the applicant had stood down. It follows that the applicant’s argument alleging an error of fact must be upheld as regards the assertion in the grounds relied on against him in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts that he ‘is the CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG’. 137 In the second place, it should be observed that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not take into account the changes in the applicant’s individual situation. The specific grounds which justified the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue were essentially linked to his positions as CEO and director of EuroChem and as former CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 138 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Although the applicant’s position as CEO of EuroChem served to justify his initial listing (see paragraphs 106 to 121 above), the same cannot be said for the maintenance of his name on the lists at issue, which are based on a periodic review of the restrictive measures in order to enable the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to take account of any changes in circumstances concerning, in particular, the individual situation of the persons subject to them. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts represent the outcome of that periodic review exercise. 139 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot assume from the mere fact that the applicant was CEO of EuroChem when his name was initially included on the lists at issue and, until 2020, CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that he could be classified as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], even several months after leaving his positions in those groups. That would lead to the applicant’s situation being frozen and to the periodic review provided for, inter alia, in the third paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(4) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 269/2014, as worded when the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts were adopted, being deprived of any practical effect. 140 Secondly, it is also not possible to take the view that the mere fact that the applicant was CEO of EuroChem and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in the past may constitute sufficient evidence that his status as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] continued. 141 It is true that it cannot automatically be ruled out that the former CEO of a major group such as EuroChem or [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may still be classified as a leading businessperson, even after that person’s resignation, all the more so where that resignation coincides with his or her initial inclusion on the lists at issue. However, where that status is disputed, it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to put forward sufficiently probative evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that the person concerned is still involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], justifying the inclusion of that person’s name on the list, even after his or her resignation (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 July 2014, Alchaar v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑203/12, not published, EU:T:2014:602, paragraph 150 and the case-law cited). 142 In the present case, however, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce any evidence relating to the applicant in the context of the action against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts explaining why he was still to be regarded as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] within the meaning of criterion (g). On the contrary, it relied on the same evidence as the evidence relating to the applicant’s links with EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which had justified the initial inclusion of his name on the lists at issue, despite the changes in his individual situation. 143 In the defence, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] simply contends that the applicant maintained his positions as a member of the board of the RSPP, as chair of the RSPP’s [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as deputy chair of the Committee on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and as head of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Such information does not relate to the grounds relied on against the applicant in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, with the result that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot take it into account when assessing whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts were well founded without effecting a substitution of grounds. 144 In any event, that information is not sufficiently substantiated to demonstrate that, when the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts were adopted, the applicant could still be classified as a leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], within the meaning of criterion (g). 145 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, the mere fact that the applicant participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 is not sufficient to establish that his listing under criterion (g) was well founded (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, Shulgin v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑364/22, not published, EU:T:2023:503, paragraph 63). 146 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the first ground for listing relating to criterion (g) is not sufficiently substantiated as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts. It is therefore necessary to examine the second ground for listing, relating to criterion (a). (2) Criterion (a) 147 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of all, the applicant states that EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] do not cooperate with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities. That assertion is not relevant in the context of the listing criteria and no evidence was adduced to support it. He submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not demonstrated that EuroChem supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbass. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the argument that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] signed contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea for its employees is materially flawed. Indeed, it was the employees themselves who decided to holiday in Crimea and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not adduced evidence that the applicant directly participated in the decision to cover the costs of those trips. The applicant further states that, since he did not occupy any position in those companies when the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts were adopted, he cannot be held responsible for their past activities. 148 Next, the applicant reiterates that he was invited to the meeting of 24 February 2022 by the RSPP, which has criticised the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on several occasions, and not by the Office of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. He states that that meeting was scheduled as an annual meeting. The applicant submits that describing his relationship with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as a professional one is insufficient justification for his listing. 149 Lastly, the applicant argues that the actions relied on by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are, in any event, not capable of undermining or threatening the territorial integrity of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] within the meaning of criterion (a). 150 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments and contends that the applicant supported actions and policies undermining the territorial integrity of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] through the activities of the companies he managed. In that regard, it refers to the supply of fertilisers by EuroChem to the occupied areas of Donbas and the financing by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of holidays for its employees in Crimea. The provision of that support is confirmed by the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022. 151 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also states that reliance on actions and policies undermining and threatening the territorial integrity of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is necessarily based on actions and policies implemented in the past. 152 It should be observed that the reasons given in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts relating to criterion (a) stem from the fact that, in his capacity as CEO of EuroChem and former CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 with [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which shows that he is part of the inner circle of oligarchs close to the president. In addition, those undertakings cooperate with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities, including [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The undertakings in the EuroChem Group supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] signed contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea for employee health programmes (see paragraph 10 above). 153 In that regard, it should be borne in mind at the outset that criterion (a), concerning the provision of support for actions or policies which undermine the territorial integrity of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], implies that a direct or indirect link is established between the activities or actions of the person or entity targeted and the situation in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] underpinning the adoption of the restrictive measures at issue. In other words, those persons or entities must, by their conduct, have been responsible for supporting actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 November 2016, Rotenberg v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑720/14, EU:T:2016:689, paragraph 74). 154 In the present case, first, it is not disputed that the applicant no longer held the position of CEO of EuroChem when the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts were adopted. 155 Secondly, although the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] points to Exhibit 8 in the first WK file, that exhibit dates from 3 February 2018 and refers to the imposition of sanctions by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in 2017, on certain undertakings in the EuroChem Group for having supplied fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas. In that regard, it is not disputed that the applicant’s appointment as CEO of EuroChem dates from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2020. Consequently, no link can be established between the applicant and the supply of fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas. That exhibit is therefore not relevant for the purposes of justifying the maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, under criterion (a), by means of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts. 156 Thirdly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relies on the payment by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of holidays in Crimea for its employees. In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] merely produces a summary in English of an article in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Exhibit 5a in the first WK file). According to the summary, that article states that, ‘in 2020 (and in previous years) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] financed the health and social programs for company’s employees by signing contracts with different sanatoriums and SPAs, including in Crimea’ and that ‘as this was done under the leadership of CEO [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [sic], it proves that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] supported and implemented actions or policies, which undermine[d] or threaten[ed] the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 157 The applicant disputes the translation of the article in question and claims that the original wording in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not state that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] signed contracts with sanatoriums and spas in Crimea. He maintains that the sentence to which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] draws attention simply states that ‘in recent years employees of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s [OSCURATO:PERSONA] enterprises have been actively exploring Crimea, choosing health resorts in Yalta and Alushta’. 158 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] When questioned at the hearing, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated that it did not cast doubt on the translation provided by the applicant and conceded that the wording of the article published on [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s website did not appear to mention a contract concluded, at least directly, by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with sanatoriums in Crimea. Accordingly, the assertion in the statement of reasons that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] signed contracts with such sanatoriums for employee health programmes is not supported by Exhibit 5a in the first WK file provided by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and does not have a sufficiently solid factual basis in accordance with paragraph 90 above. 159 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] In that regard, pursuant to the case-law cited in paragraph 91 above, in order to address the applicant’s argument that the original wording of the article does not refer to a contract, it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to establish that the reasons relied on against the applicant, based on links between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and sanatoriums and spas in Crimea, are well founded, and not for the applicant to adduce evidence of the negative, that those reasons are not well founded. 160 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] For the sake of completeness, if it were considered that the payment by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the travel expenses of its employees, some of whom had chosen to visit Crimea, as the applicant acknowledges, was linked to the statement of reasons, that fact alone would not be sufficient to support the applicant’s listing under criterion (a), since it is apparent from Exhibit 5a in the first WK file that the employees picked their holiday destination. Thus, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 153 above, that fact is insufficient to establish the existence of a link, even an indirect link, between the applicant’s activities or actions and the situation in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] underpinning the adoption of the restrictive measures. 161 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Fourthly, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 145 above, which must be applied by analogy in the context of criterion (a), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot infer from the mere fact that the applicant participated in a meeting organised by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] attended by representatives of large undertakings that he may be held responsible for actions or policies undermining or threatening stability in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], or may be considered to support such actions or policies. 162 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the assertion that the applicant’s presence at the meeting of 24 February 2022 is evidence of a professional relationship and of the fact that it is impossible to run a large undertaking in Russia without the government’s approval in exchange for loyalty and support cannot be relied on in support of criterion (a). Such a general assertion is not capable of establishing a direct or indirect link with the situation in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] underpinning the adoption of the restrictive measures. 163 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the claim that the applicant is part of the inner circle of oligarchs close to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not, in itself, capable of establishing a link within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 153 above. In that regard, it should also be pointed out that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself submitted, in the defence, that the applicant had been listed not because of a personal relationship with the president but because of a professional one. Therefore, the fact that the applicant participated in the meeting of 24 February 2022 is not in itself sufficient to establish that his listing under criterion (a) is well founded. 164 Fifthly, the meeting referred to in Exhibit 6 in the first WK file was concerned with the environmental situation in the territory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], so that not only is it not related to the grounds relied on against the applicant in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, but it does not demonstrate any link between the applicant and the actions and policies referred to in criterion (a). 165 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the ground for listing relating to criterion (a) is not sufficiently substantiated as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts. It is therefore necessary to examine the third ground for listing relating to criterion (f). (3) Criterion (f) 166 The applicant argues that the statement that he cooperates with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] authorities is imprecise and erroneous, as well as irrelevant. Moreover, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not adduce any evidence in support of its claims that the applicant supported the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Thus, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not prove either that EuroChem or [OSCURATO:PERSONA] generated and provided substantial revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or that undertakings in the EuroChem Group supplied ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbass. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not sign any contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea. The proposition that it is impossible to run a large, successful undertaking in Russia without the government’s support in exchange for loyalty and support for government policies is insufficient justification for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue. In his reply, the applicant states that the payment of taxes does not amount to the provision of support. 167 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments and contends that he was responsible for providing quantitatively and qualitatively significant support to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] through the companies he managed, first, on account of their contribution to the budget of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, secondly, by the support provided to government policies as set out in criterion (a). In particular, it states that both the fertiliser industry and the coal industry are strategic sectors offering a major source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Moreover, the direct taxes alone paid by EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] distinguish them from ordinary companies. Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that those companies actively supported specific policies of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by supplying fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas and by financing some employees’ holidays in Crimea. 168 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also argues that it is in the context of the analysis of criterion (f) alone that the revenues generated by individual companies are of importance. It maintains that it did not consider only taxes to be a form of support to the government, but also the strategic leverage that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and EuroChem provided in sectors of key importance due to their exports. 169 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of all, it should be recalled that, in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] referred to the applicant’s position as CEO of EuroChem, even though he had resigned from that position when those acts were adopted (see paragraphs 136 to 155 above). Therefore, the applicant’s argument that he does not occupy any position in those companies must be upheld as regards the assertion in the grounds that he ‘is the CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG’. 170 In that regard, although the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was entitled to rely on the link between the applicant and EuroChem in the case of the initial acts, that link was no longer valid in the case of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts. 171 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Next, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 141 above, it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to put forward sufficiently probative evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that the person concerned still supports, materially or financially, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], justifying the inclusion of that person’s name on the list, even after his or her resignation (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 July 2014, Alchaar v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑203/12, not published, EU:T:2014:602, paragraph 150 and the case-law cited). 172 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce any evidence showing that the applicant supported, materially or financially, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] such as to justify the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue under criterion (f). On the contrary, notwithstanding the case-law cited in paragraph 132 above, it relied on the same evidence justifying the initial inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, which essentially related to his former positions at EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], despite the changes in his situation. 173 In addition, it should be noted that criterion (f), which is concerned with ‘natural or legal persons, entities or bodies supporting, materially or financially, … the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, is clearly worded in the present case (see, by analogy, judgment of 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, Prigozhina v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑212/22, not published, EU:T:2023:104, paragraph 92). Therefore, since the applicant no longer held any position at EuroChem or [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the date of the adoption of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, he was not able to provide such support through those companies. 174 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Lastly, as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s claim regarding the supply of fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbas, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has found, in paragraph 155 above, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce any evidence to establish a link between the applicant and that supply. Similarly, as regards the alleged signature of contracts by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with sanatoriums in Crimea for employee health programmes, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has also found that that claim was not substantiated by Exhibit 5a in the first WK file and, therefore, did not have a sufficiently solid factual basis (see paragraphs 156 to 160 above). 175 Consequently, in the light of the foregoing, the applicant’s arguments in respect of criterion (f) must be upheld as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts. 176 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the grounds for listing in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts relating to criteria (a), (f) and (g) are not sufficiently substantiated, with the result that those acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant. (c) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts 177 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, in the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts relied on against the applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated that the applicant was the ‘former CEO and Director of EuroChem Group AG, having formally resigned from that position when listed under restrictive measures by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], whilst he continue[d] to exert influence through shell companies’, that ‘previously (between 2004 and 2020) he was the CEO of a coal company [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, and that ‘these are major [OSCURATO:PERSONA] companies – co-owned by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the wife of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] billionaire [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 178 In support of its argument that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts are well founded in respect of the applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] refers to the second WK file, containing three exhibits, namely: –        an article from the EuroChem website announcing the applicant’s resignation (Exhibit 1); –        an article from the website ‘rambler.ru’, published on 18 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 (Exhibit 2); –        an article from the media outlet [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , published on 28 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 (Exhibit 3). 179 The applicant states that Exhibit 3 in the second WK file describes him as the CEO of EuroChem one week after his resignation. He disputes the probative value of that article for the purposes of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts, adopted one year after its publication. The applicant also reiterates that past conduct cannot provide sufficient grounds for the imposition of restrictive measures and that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has no evidence that his resignation was staged. 180 Moreover, the applicant submits that none of the exhibits in the second WK file shows that he exerts influence over the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. According to the applicant, the claim that he exerts influence over EuroChem through shell companies cannot validly be supported by the evidence adduced by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in particular Exhibit 2 in the second WK file. 181 Finally, the applicant maintains that the information to the effect that EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are co-owned by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is irrelevant for the purposes of his listing. He states that the remainder of the statement of reasons is unchanged and that he was not invited by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to the meeting of 24 February 2022. He also refers to the role played by the RSPP, which he claims has challenged the policies of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on many occasions. 182 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. Although it accepts that the applicant resigned from his position as CEO of EuroChem on the day on which the restrictive measures were imposed, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nevertheless contends that the effects of that resignation had to be assessed in order to check that it was not fictitious and maintains that that position was still relevant in the light of criterion (g). [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considered that the applicant continued to be an important businessperson since he maintained links with EuroChem and that the word ‘leading’ cannot be interpreted restrictively. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also notes that the applicant maintained his positions at the RSPP. 183 As regards Exhibit 2 in the second WK file, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] takes the view that, although the translation might contain errors regarding the applicant’s relationship with EuroChem, the statement that he continues to hold directorships in companies related to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not disputed by the applicant. Moreover, the fact that the publisher decided to withdraw the article in question in no way proves that its content was inaccurate, since that withdrawal could be the result of pressure exerted by the applicant. In response to the applicant’s criticism of the reliability of Exhibit 2 in the second WK file, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] produces Annex F1 to its observations on the first statement of modification, which it claims shows that the applicant continued to be a member of the board of directors of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] LLC (‘SGC’), a company related to [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Accordingly, the exhibits in the second WK file support the conclusion that the applicant remained active in the energy sector. 184 Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022 also bolsters the conclusion that he supports or implements actions threatening the territorial integrity of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], evidenced by the fact that he was responsible for providing quantitatively and qualitatively significant support to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on account of (i) the contribution of the companies he managed to the budget of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and (ii) the support provided to the policies of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. (1) Criterion (g) 185 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] In the first place, it should be recalled, as is clear from paragraph 140 above, that the previous positions of the applicant as CEO of EuroChem and CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot, in themselves alone, constitute sufficient evidence that he continued to hold the status of leading businessperson active in sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Therefore, for the purposes of assessing criterion (g), it is necessary to determine whether the evidence submitted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] constitutes a set of indicia that is sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to support the ground that the applicant ‘continue[d] to exert influence through shell companies’. 186 In that regard, it should be noted that that assertion is based on Exhibit 2 in the second WK file, which is an excerpt from a news article published on the website ‘rambler.ru’, worded as follows: ‘According to a similar scheme, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the former owner of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], has now come out of the sanctions. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10, a statement appeared about his resignation from the board of directors and the termination of his ownership of the company. “By the end of 2021, the legal entity representing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] business interests indirectly owned 92.2% of the company’s shares. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] left the Board of Directors and the number of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s beneficiaries, his controlled share was reduced to 0%,” [OSCURATO:PERSONA] said in a press release. Judging by SPARK-Interfax, 100% of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is directly owned by the Cypriot [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Its director is the enigmatic [A], one of the top managers of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Both of them are also registered in Cyprus and both of them have [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as a director. He, like [OSCURATO:PERSONA], was a member of the board of directors of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, having fallen under sanctions, left him. He also resigned from the position of chief executive officer of EuroChem, also controlled by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (he pulled off a similar scheme, as in the case of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to “get rid of” EuroChem).’ 187 It should be noted that while that article states that A is director of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s Cypriot holding companies and, in addition, is one of the senior managers at [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], also registered in Cyprus, it simply mentions that the applicant is director of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. It therefore only follows from the article that A is a ‘top manager’ in two companies in which the applicant is director and that she is also director of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s Cypriot holding companies. Therefore, the link referred to between the applicant and A does not prove the existence of shell companies and does not mean that the applicant continues to exert influence over [OSCURATO:PERSONA] through such companies. Moreover, it should be noted that the ground according to which the applicant ‘continues to exert influence through shell companies’ appears to refer exclusively to EuroChem and that influence over [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not mentioned in the grounds. 188 In addition, as regards the applicant’s possible influence over EuroChem through shell companies, the article provided by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] merely states that ‘he pulled off a similar scheme, as in the case of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to “get rid of” EuroChem’ and that ‘100% of the EuroChem shares are owned by the Swiss EuroChem Group. It was not possible to find out who is behind the EuroChem Group, but it could be someone from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] entourage, even if he is the most ordinary purchasing or sales manager’. 189 In that regard, it should be noted that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself, in its observations on the first statement of modification, acknowledges that the translation might contain errors regarding the applicant’s relationship with EuroChem. Thus, the article in question does not make it possible to determine with sufficient certainty whether it was the applicant or [OSCURATO:PERSONA] who ‘pulled off a similar scheme, as in the case of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to “get rid of” EuroChem’. In addition, that article states that it is not possible to identify who is behind EuroChem. Accordingly, there is no indication given in Exhibit 2 in the second WK file that the applicant exerted any influence over EuroChem through shell companies. 190 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Since it is apparent from paragraphs 188 and 189 that influence on the part of the applicant through shell companies cannot be considered to be sufficiently established, the conclusions to be drawn from the publisher’s removal of the article filed as Exhibit 2 cannot be decisive. Moreover, Exhibit 2 is not supported by other evidence and cannot in itself be sufficient. 191 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that, for the purposes of establishing whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts are well founded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not provided a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the proposition that the applicant was a leading businessperson involved in sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] within the meaning of criterion (g). 192 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] That finding cannot be called into question, first, by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s argument that the applicant continues to be a leading businessperson because he is still a member of the RSPP. As stated in paragraph 143 above, that information does not relate to the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts either and cannot therefore be taken into account by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 193 Secondly, as regards the evidence produced by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] during the litigation stage before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], consisting of an extract from the Spark-Interfax companies register attesting to the applicant’s membership of the board of directors of SGC, it must in any event be found that, even though the document appears to show that the applicant exerted influence over that company, it is not possible to infer therefrom that he would have exerted influence over [OSCURATO:PERSONA] through SGC. 194 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Thirdly, as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s argument concerning the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022, suffice it to recall that such participation is not in itself sufficient to establish that his listing under criterion (g) was well founded, as is apparent from paragraph 145 above. 195 In the second place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acknowledges that the reference in the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts to the effect that EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are ‘co-owned by [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ is a purely factual assertion which has no bearing on the applicant’s situation. 196 Therefore, it must be held that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce a body of precise and consistent evidence to support the applicant’s listing under criterion (g). (2) Criteria (a) and (f) 197 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it must be borne in mind that the grounds for listing relating to criterion (a) set out in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts are the same as those in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts and are based on the supply by EuroChem of ammonia nitrate to the occupied areas of Donbas, on the contracts signed by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] with sanatoriums in Crimea for employee health programmes, and on the applicant’s participation in the meeting of 24 February 2022. 198 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] It is apparent from paragraphs 152 and 165 above that, as regards criterion (a), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the applicant’s listing under that criterion and it has adduced no evidence to that effect in the second WK file. 199 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] Secondly, as regards criterion (f), the grounds for listing are essentially based on the influence exerted by the applicant over EuroChem or [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to support the existence of such influence, as is clear from paragraphs 185 to 190 above, it cannot be held that those grounds justify maintaining the applicant’s name on the lists at issue in the light of criterion (f). 200 Consequently, the grounds for listing in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts relating to criteria (a) and (f) are not sufficiently substantiated. 201 Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence capable of sufficiently substantiating the grounds on the basis of which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts maintained the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, under criteria (a), (f) and (g), with the result that those acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant. (d) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts 202 The applicant reiterates, in essence, the arguments put forward in the application and in the first statement of modification. In the first place, he disputes the merits of the claim that he continues to exert influence over EuroChem through shell companies. In the second place, he submits that he has no links to the alleged supply by EuroChem of fertilisers to the occupied areas of Donbass. In the third place, he argues that he has no responsibility whatsoever for the alleged contracts with sanatoriums in Crimea. In the fourth place, he denies being a member of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] inner circle. 203 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] disputes the applicant’s arguments. In the first place, it states that the new evidence files which it notified to the applicant contained information concerning his positions at SGC and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also asserts that, although additional material was examined and notified to the applicant so that he could submit observations on it, it was not considered to constitute separate grounds. 204 In the second place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the applicant continues to be an important businessperson and is still active in the energy and fertilisers sectors, even after resigning from his high-level positions, in particular having regard to his membership of the board of directors of SGC. 205 In the third place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] maintains that the other grounds for listing relating to criteria (a) and (f) remain valid. That is also demonstrated, in particular, by the applicant’s positions as a member of the board of the RSPP, as chair of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as deputy chair of the Committee on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and as head of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as attested by paragraph 39 of the application. 206 In the fourth place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] draws attention to Exhibit 1 in the third and fourth WK files, showing that the applicant continues to be a member of the board of directors of SGC. It also submits that the evidence adduced by the applicant to challenge that exhibit was not provided in tempore non suspecto and is unreliable. 207 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that the grounds for listing the applicant were not amended, but that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] put forward additional evidence in order to substantiate that listing. 208 In that regard, first, the third WK file contains a file comprising six new items of evidence, namely: –        Exhibit 1, which is an extract from the ‘spark-interfax.ru’ website, dated 4 May 2023, showing that the applicant is a member of the board of directors of SGC, which, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], is part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] group of companies; –        Exhibit 2, which is an extract from the official website of SGC, dated 4 May 2023; –        Exhibit 3, which is an extract from the website of the ‘crunchbase.com’ database, dated 4 May 2023, showing that the applicant is chair of the board of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an organisation established by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in 2010; –        Exhibit 4, which is also an extract from the website of the ‘crunchbase.com’ database, dated 4 May 2023, containing details about the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; –        Exhibit 5, which is an extract from the official website of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], dated 4 May 2023, showing that that foundation had been included in a government programme for economic development and innovation; –        Exhibit 6, which is an extract from the website ‘opensanctions.org’, dated 21 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023, reproducing information relating to the restrictive measures to which the applicant is subject. 209 Secondly, the fourth WK file contains eight items of evidence. Exhibits 1 to 4 in the fourth WK file are identical to Exhibits 1 to 4 in the third WK file, listed in paragraph 208 above. The fourth WK file also contains four other exhibits, namely: –        Exhibit 5, which is an article from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] news outlet Kommersant , dated 25 May 2018, showing that SGC participated in public contracts in the energy sector in Russia and that the owner of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], was considering a merger between SGC and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; –        Exhibit 6, which is an extract from the website of the local news outlet ‘newslab.ru’, dating from 2023, confirming the role of SGC in the energy sector; –        Exhibit 7, which is an article published on the website of the local news outlet ‘newslab.ru’ on 9 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2016 describing a meeting between the governor of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] region and the management of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and SGC, including the applicant, at that time general director of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and member of the board of directors of SGC; –        Exhibit 8, which is an article published on the website of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] news agency ITAR-TASS, dated 18 May 2020, concerning a management reshuffle at [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and its subsidiary SGK. 210 The applicant maintains that the information provided by the Spark-Interfax database (Exhibit 1 in the third and fourth WK files) is incorrect and that he is not a member of the board of directors of SGC, and he submits evidence in rebuttal to that effect. 211 In the first place, it is necessary to examine whether the applicant’s position at SGC, on which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relies, is capable of demonstrating that the ground for listing, according to which ‘he continues to exert influence through shell companies’, is well founded. 212 In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that the relevant part of the statement of reasons for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts states, in the first place, that the applicant is the former CEO and director of EuroChem; in the second place, that he officially resigned from those positions following the inclusion of his name on the lists at issue; in the third place, that he nevertheless continues to exert influence through shell companies; in the fourth place, that EuroChem is one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilisers; and, in the fifth place, that previously (between 2004 and 2020), he was the CEO of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Accordingly, it follows from reading the statement of reasons that that influence through shell companies refers to EuroChem, not [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. It does not in any way follow from Exhibits 1 and 2 in the third and fourth WK files that there was a link between SGC and EuroChem. Quite the opposite: while SGC was active in the energy sector, EuroChem’s business is in the fertiliser sector. 213 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], even if a very broad reading of the statement of reasons were to permit the inference that ‘[the applicant’s] influence through shell companies’ also covered [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it is not sufficiently clear from the third and fourth WK files that the applicant exerted such influence through SGC. It is apparent from Exhibit 1 in the third and fourth WK files and Exhibit 8 in the fourth WK file that it was [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which was the founding company of SGC, or its parent company, which presupposes that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was able to exert influence over SGC, not the other way around. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred from those exhibits that SGC was a ‘shell company’ in relation to [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Consequently, membership of the board of directors of a subsidiary of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not prove that the applicant continued to exert influence over that company through a shell company. 214 In any event, as regards whether the facts observed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are materially accurate, it must be borne in mind that, in his letters of 3 and 24 July 2023, in response to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s correspondence of 19 June and 10 July 2023, the applicant adduced evidence to support the contention that he had stood down from his position at SGC. In those letters, he also submits, providing supporting evidence, that he had stood down from his position at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in 2019. 215 In its letter of 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 informing the applicant of its decision to maintain his listing, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that the evidence adduced by the applicant had been ‘taken into account’. 216 Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] simply asserts that the evidence was not produced in tempore non suspecto and is unreliable, it must be held that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to refute that evidence. As regards the reliability of that evidence, it should be noted that, although the applicant provides extracts from the Spark-Interfax website (Annexes 1 and 6 to the applicant’s letter of 3 July 2023), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] itself relied on extracts from the same website (Exhibit 1 in the third WK file). Moreover, it was only after receiving the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s letters of 19 June 2023 that the applicant had the opportunity to challenge them. 217 In the second place, as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s reasoning based on the applicant’s alleged status as member of the board of directors of SGC and on the activities of that company in the energy sector, in order to substantiate his status as a ‘businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, within the meaning of criterion (g) as amended, it must be held that such reasoning is not based on any link with the statement of reasons. Unless a substitution of grounds is admitted, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot rely on evidence to support an assertion which is in no way related to the reasons as they appear in the lists at issue. That assertion relates to a company which is not mentioned anywhere in the statement of reasons, which are based, as recalled in paragraph 212 above, on the influence exerted by the applicant over EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] through shell companies. 218 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it should be borne in mind that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acknowledges that, after examining the new evidence submitted by the applicant, it decided, in essence, that the earlier reasons were sufficient and that it was not necessary to amend them. In that regard, although material in the evidence file may supplement certain aspects of the statement of reasons, by linking to the latter, such material cannot be permitted to replace that statement of reasons. In the present case, it is impossible to identify the aspect of the statement of reasons to which the material concerning the applicant’s position at SGC relates. 219 The same applies to the applicant’s position at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The evidence provided by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in that regard is not related to any part of the statement of reasons. Moreover, it is not clear whether that evidence goes to proving that the applicant continues to be either a ‘leading businessperson operating in Russia’ or a ‘businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’, within the meaning of criterion (g) as amended, or whether he benefits from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], within the meaning of criterion (f). Moreover, as regards criterion (g), the applicant’s position in a foundation  even a governmental one and even one involved in economic development projects  is not, in itself, capable of demonstrating that he is a ‘businessperson’. 220 In that regard, it must be observed that a scenario in which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could put forward new reasons that differ from those set out in the contested acts in order to regularise the absence of a statement of reasons or to correct factual inaccuracies in the statement of reasons for those acts would undermine the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2023, QF v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑386/22, not published, EU:T:2023:670, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited). 221 Thirdly, Exhibits 5, 7 and 8 in the fourth WK file, which concern the applicant’s position at SGC and the links between that company and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], are not relevant to proving that, on the date of adoption of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts, the applicant was a member of the board of directors of that company. Those documents date from 2016, 2018 and 2020 and the applicant does not dispute that he was still a board member on those dates. 222 In the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence to demonstrate that the applicant continued to be a leading businessperson operating in Russia or a businessperson involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 223 [As rectified by order of 24 July 2024] As regards criteria (a) and (f), it is clear from paragraph 198 above that, as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence capable of sufficiently substantiating the ground for including the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, under those criteria, since it was not able to establish that the applicant exerted control over EuroChem and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce evidence of such control, the findings made in paragraphs 165, 175 and 200 apply a fortiori to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts. 224 Thus, it must be concluded that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to adduce a body of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent evidence capable of demonstrating that the applicant was a leading businessperson, that he supported the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], or that he was responsible for actions or policies which undermined or threatened the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for the purposes of establishing that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts were well founded, with the result that those acts must be annulled. 225 In the light of all of the foregoing, the third plea in law in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22 must be upheld and, therefore, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 acts, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 acts must be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, without it being necessary to examine the other pleas in law and arguments put forward in support of the action in that case. V. Costs 226 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules 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. 227 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑309/22, he must be ordered to pay the costs in that case, in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 228 Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been largely unsuccessful in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑739/22, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T ‑ 309/22 and T ‑ 739/22 for the purposes of the judgment; 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2022 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2023/571 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2023 implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in so far as those acts concern [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; 3. Dismisses the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T ‑ 309/22; 4. Dismisses the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T ‑ 739/22 as to the remainder; 5. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T ‑ 309/22; 6. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T ‑ 739/22. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in open court in Luxembourg on 10 July 2024. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.