Judgment of the Court of Justice Grand Chamber, 10 September 2024, KS and Others v Council and Others, C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P

• Date: 10 September 2024
• Year: 2024

94

The applicant is mistaken in claiming that the initial acts - which were adopted subsequent to the

sectoral restrictive measures and consist in the freezing of the applicant’s funds - prevented the

export or transfer of potash within the European Union

180

.

Moreover, the Court holds that the applican t has failed to demonstrate that the initial ac ts constituted

a disproportionate interference with its freedom to conduct a business or with Belarusian society, or

that they undermined global food security. On this point, the Court poin ts out that the items of

evidence raised by the applicant do not concern the initial acts, which imposed the freezing of funds,

but relate primarily to the trading of fertilisers, inc luding potash fertilisers, on the global market.

Furthermore, while those documents make reference to the global food crisis, they do not concern

the impact of the initial acts on that global food crisis.

Finally, the Court rejects the applicant’s argument that the Counci l cou ld have used less restrictive

measures i n order to ea se the imp act of in clusion on the lists at issue. The applicant in fact

proposed, first, that c onditions be established in order that the national authorities of the Member

States be able t o gran t autho risations to EU persons and operators to enter into transactions with

the applicant for the import, purch ase and transfer of potash fertilisers and to provide rel ated

financing services and, seco nd, the introduc tion of quotas for t he supply of such fe rtilisers to the

European Un ion.

However, that line of argument does not actually relate to the initial acts, which are individual in

scope, but to the sectoral restrictive measures, which are general in scope.

Moreover, on the one hand, that line of argume nt does not demonstrate that the applicant is

completely prevented from exporting its products. It is in fact not excluded that the applicant be able

to transport its products to the ports of other countries outside the European Union.

On the other hand, the alternative measures propo sed concern the possibilities of exporting potash

fertilisers to the European Union and, consequentl y, would not make it possible efficiently to achieve

the objectives pursued.

2. ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 10 September 2024, KS and Other s v

Council and Others, C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P

Link to the full text of the judgment

Appeal – Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP – European Union Rule

of Law Mission in Kosovo (Eulex Kosovo) – Action for damages – Damage allegedly suffered as a result of

various acts and omissions by the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the

European External Action Service ( EEAS) in the implementation of that joint action – Insufficient

investigation of the torture, disappearance and killing of persons – Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of

the European U nion to rule on that action – Last sentence of the second subparagraph of

Article 24(1) TEU – Article 275 TFEU)

180

Article 2g of Decision 2012/642 and Article 1g of Regulation No 765/2006, introduced by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1031 of 24 June 2021

amending Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 224I, p. 15) and

Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1030 of 24 June 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures i n respect of

Belarus (OJ 2021 L 224I, p. 1), which e xpressly provide that the purchase, import or transfer from Belarus of potash products is to be

prohibited.