24 January 2025, Friday, 0:07
Support
the website
Sim Sim,
Charter 97!
Categories

EU Court Refuses To Lift Sanctions Against Two Billionaires Of Belarusian Origin

5
EU Court Refuses To Lift Sanctions Against Two Billionaires Of Belarusian Origin

The matter concerns Andrey Melnichenko and Dmitry Mazepin.

Litigation of Russian billionaires with Belarusian roots Andrey Melnichenko (seventh line in the rating of Russian Forbes, fortune - $21.1 billion) and Dmitry Mazepin (59th place, $2.4 billion) has not yet been successful in the EU court. The court sees no reason to lift the sanctions, writes Myfin.by.

Businessman Andrey Melnichenko fell under EU sanctions on 9 March 2022. And already on 31 May that year, he made an attempt to challenge his status.

In the last hearings on the case, SUEK and EuroChem Group AG tried to join the lawsuit as third parties on the side of the plaintiff, but the President of the First Chamber of the EU Court of General Jurisdiction refused them.

At the hearing on 22 January, Andrey Melnichenko's claim was completely dismissed.

The EU Court of Justice concluded that at the time of being included in the sanctions list, the plaintiff met the criterion g of Article 3 of Regulation 269 ‘leading businessman’, as he attended a meeting with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on 24 February 2022. And despite the fact that the beneficiary of the Firstline Trust, in which Eurochem and SUEK were invested, was Melnichenko's wife, the claimant retained economic interests in both these companies and continued to benefit from them.

According to the court's finding, the applicant sought witness status to appear in court to testify about his relationship with Firstline Trust. Since this is a right and not a duty of the court, the petitioner was denied. The claimant now has two months to appeal.

Also, the EU Court of Justice refused to lift sanctions against billionaire Dmitry Mazepin and rejected the arguments of his appeal.

In support of the claims to cancel the decision of the EU Court of General Jurisdiction and to annul the EU document on four extensions of Mazepin's presence in the EU sanctions list, eight arguments are stated. Among them are the following:

the first instance made a legal error in interpreting criterion g in the sense that the phrase ‘providing substantial income to the Russian Government’ refers to specific sectors of the economy, not entrepreneurs;

misinterpretation of the concepts of ‘source of income’ and ‘substantial source of income’, which subsequently led to an unjustified decision by the court;

breach of the duty to properly motivate its conclusions, which were contradictory;

the judgement ‘turned upside down’ and failed to explore the claimant's key argument.

Lawyers note that four of the appellant's eight arguments are the same as those in its appeal last year.

While Melnichenko's business is linked to Eurochem and SUEK, Mazepin is known as the founder of Uralkhim UCC and owner of a stake in Uralkali.

Write your comment 5

Follow Charter97.org social media accounts