Latvia has asked to file an appeal against the verdict on the lifting of sanctions against Aven, the EU Council is still thinking – BNN

Author: Ilona Bērziņa

Although Latvia has invited the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union to file an appeal against the judgments of the General Court of the European Union regarding the lifting of sanctions against Pēteris Aven and Mihailas Fridman, the Council of the EU is not in a hurry to do so for the time being. In addition, according to the judgment of the General Court, the Council of the EU will have to cover the expenses of the lawyers of P. Aven and M. Fridman.

Latvia has asked the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union to file an appeal against the judgments of the EU General Court to cancel the EU sanctions imposed on billionaires Pēteris Aven and Mihaila Fridman on February 28, 2022. The Council of the European Union has not yet made a decision on whether or not to submit an appeal, BNN found out from the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs.

The decision of the General Court of the European Union can be appealed to the Supreme Chamber of the CJEU within two months, and it is not yet known whether the Council of the EU will file an appeal. Andris Lazdiņš, a partner of the law firm “Lazdiņš Gavars”, a sworn attorney, emphasizes that, taking into account the significant impact of the judgment on the EU sanctions regime, there is a possibility that this judgment of the European Union Court of First Instance will be appealed to the Supreme Court of the CJEU and they will review this issue. On the other hand, Kristers Toms Losāns, an expert on sanctions and an assistant to the sworn lawyer of “Ellex Kļaviņš” explains that this decision can be appealed if he believes that the court has made serious mistakes. “Theoretically, it is possible, but then you have to very seriously point out exactly what the mistake was.”

According to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of the European Union, the party against whom the verdict is unfavorable shall be ordered to pay legal expenses if requested by the party against whom the verdict is favorable. The Ministry of Justice states that, in accordance with the judgments T-301/22 Aven/Council and T-304/22 Fridman/Council, the Council of the European Union covers its own legal costs, as well as those of P. Aven and M. Fridman, which also include compensation for the parties to the case for lawyers.

When asked how big the costs of the said legal proceedings could be, Kristers Tom Losans states: “This is a high-profile case, a serious case where all EU member states, through the European Parliament and the Council, have decided to apply sanctions, and an individual is fighting against these sanctions. Of course, it depends on the agreement with the specific legal aid provider, but it is certainly not a cheap pleasure, because it is a sufficiently complicated and serious matter.”

On the other hand, to the question whether Latvia, which intervened in both EU Court cases, supporting the position of the Council of the EU on the need for specific sanctions, should be compensated for legal costs, TM replied that Latvia’s representation in the General Court is provided by the employees of the Ministry of Justice within the existing budget resources. A. Lazdiņš also emphasizes that Latvia’s request to appeal the said judgment does not mean that it will be Latvia’s expenses, “it will be the expenses of the EU institutions actually appealing the judgments – the Council of the EU. On the other hand, Latvia, as an EU member state that intervened in the case, covers its own court costs,” says the lawyer.

It has already been reported that, in the view of the EU General Court, none of the grounds contained in the initial legal acts for subjecting P. Aven and M. Fridman to sanctions have been sufficiently argued, and therefore their inclusion in the lists of persons subject to sanctions is not justified. The court believes that although the arguments put forward by the Council of the EU can prove some kind of connection between Aven and Friedman with Vladimir Putin or persons close to him, they do not allow establishing that they have supported actions or policies that undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, or that they provided material or financial support to Russian officials responsible for the annexation of Crimea. On the other hand, regarding their later retention in the sanctions lists, the EU General Court ruled that the Council of the EU did not provide any additional evidence compared to those it relied on initially.

Sworn lawyer Andris Lazdiņš emphasizes that the General Court of the European Union has now said that the first extensions, which were included in the sanctions lists, are invalid, but after that there were further extensions of sanctions which remained valid. “Considering that the court’s judgment was broad and extensive, if there are essentially no new arguments in subsequent sanctions decisions, there is a high probability that the same reasoning contained in the judgments will be applied to overturn subsequent decisions. Since each of these [nākamais] the sanctions order is issued by a separate decision of the Council of the EU and they have not been canceled by this judgment in this case, they are still valid. It can be speculated that regarding the latter [sankciju pagarinājumiem] will have similar conclusions.”

A. Lazdiņš states that the criteria for when restrictions can be applied to a person are analyzed through the prism of whether a person is involved in threatening the integrity of the territory of Ukraine, financed or received financing from those who are directly responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. “The judges have gone through these criteria and the Council’s reference to several publications was used as a justification, and the big conclusion of the court is that it is not sufficiently proven and justified. There is, of course, the question of how detailed it should be done in general, because any sanctions also have a political aspect, not only a purely legal scope. It is an open question how far the sanctioning body, the Council of the European Union, has to justify it. What the court said here is that it is not sufficiently reasoned and the evidence referred to by the Council of the European Union is not enough to convince the court.” At the same time, A. Lazdiņš emphasizes that he does not venture to make predictions about how the appellate instance will decide, however, he fully accepts that the Supreme Court of the CJEU can decide which judgment of the General Court is incorrect.

Krister Toms Losans, on the other hand, expressed that if the EU Council does not change its justification for applying sanctions to specific persons, by analogy it should not be the case that sanctions are applied further.

Read also: A week in Lithuania | The Supreme Court ruled that the MP violated the constitution; the minister draws the prosecutors’ attention to the president’s statement about Volkov’s attacker

Follow us too Facebook, To friends and X!