EU General Court Upholds Russia Sanctions on Gennady and Elena Timchenko, Rejecting All Delisting Grounds
The EU General Court has rejected applications by Gennady Timchenko and his wife Elena Timchenko to annul their September 2024 and March 2025 relistings on the EU Russia sanctions list.
Gennady Timchenko (Case T-603/24)
Mr Timchenko was originally listed in February 2022 under criteria covering support for actions undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity and benefiting from Russian decision-makers responsible for destabilisation of Ukraine. He was relisted in March and September 2024 and again in March 2025 on the same grounds, with the additional criterion of being a "leading businessperson in Russia." This was his fourth delisting attempt before the General Court, and it was rejected on the same basis as his previous three applications. The Court declined once again to examine the legality of criterion (g), finding that criterion (d) alone was sufficient to justify the listing.
Elena Timchenko (Case T-602/24)
Mrs Timchenko has been listed since February 2022 for being "associated with" her husband, and has been relisted multiple times on the same grounds. The Court rejected her arguments for broadly the same reasons as her earlier applications. Key findings included:
Procedural challenge dismissed
Both applicants raised a new argument that the March 2025 relistings were procedurally invalid because their files were reviewed not by the Council directly, but by preparatory bodies including Coreper and working groups. The Court rejected this, confirming that Coreper's preparatory role is a standard feature of EU legislative procedure under Article 19 of the Council's Rules of Procedure, and that notifications drafted by Coreper remain subject to Council challenge at any stage.
Damages claims rejected
Gennady Timchenko (Case T-603/24)
Mr Timchenko was originally listed in February 2022 under criteria covering support for actions undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity and benefiting from Russian decision-makers responsible for destabilisation of Ukraine. He was relisted in March and September 2024 and again in March 2025 on the same grounds, with the additional criterion of being a "leading businessperson in Russia." This was his fourth delisting attempt before the General Court, and it was rejected on the same basis as his previous three applications. The Court declined once again to examine the legality of criterion (g), finding that criterion (d) alone was sufficient to justify the listing.
Elena Timchenko (Case T-602/24)
Mrs Timchenko has been listed since February 2022 for being "associated with" her husband, and has been relisted multiple times on the same grounds. The Court rejected her arguments for broadly the same reasons as her earlier applications. Key findings included:
- The concept of "association" under EU sanctions extends beyond family relationships and encompasses broader links to a designated person
- Her resignation from the Timchenko Foundation did not sever her connection to the designation, as it occurred after the relevant acts were passed and she remains a founder and active participant in the Foundation
- The argument that Russian law requires founders to retain minimum powers merely confirmed — rather than undermined — the continuing relevance of her status
Procedural challenge dismissed
Both applicants raised a new argument that the March 2025 relistings were procedurally invalid because their files were reviewed not by the Council directly, but by preparatory bodies including Coreper and working groups. The Court rejected this, confirming that Coreper's preparatory role is a standard feature of EU legislative procedure under Article 19 of the Council's Rules of Procedure, and that notifications drafted by Coreper remain subject to Council challenge at any stage.
Damages claims rejected
- The Court dismissed Mr Timchenko's claim for reputational damage, finding no evidence of real and certain loss sufficient to establish non-contractual EU liability. Mrs Timchenko's damages claim was also rejected, as she failed to demonstrate that the contested acts were unlawful.
