Sep 18, 2024

Latvia may have to pay at least €2 million if it loses appeal in Avena/ case 2024-09-18 08:58:06 The lawyer did not reveal the reasons for Latvia’s appeal, as he is preparing his response to the court, but noted that “Latvia has not presented anything new, and certainly no strong legal arguments.” If Latvia loses the case, it could have to pay at least €2 million in court costs. According to him, the decision of the General Court of the ECJ in the Avena case is extremely well-founded, and Latvia’s appeal does not indicate any serious reasons for its annulment. “It is difficult to understand why such an appeal was filed, at least from a legal perspective,” the lawyer said. LETA has previously reported that the arguments included in the appeal against the court ruling in Aven’s favor were approved at the minister’s cabinet meeting and are currently considered classified information, so the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is not disclosing them. TM previously informed LETA that the court is currently considering whether the appeal is admissible. If the appeal is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the CJEU may at any time, by reasoned order, decide to dismiss it in whole or in part. Latvia was among the Member States that invited the Council of the EU to lodge an appeal, however, according to the recommendation of the Legal Service of the Council of the EU and the opinion of the majority of EU Member States, the Council of the EU did not do so. Latvia is the only country that has appealed the verdict. However, other EU Member States and institutions can also intervene in the appeal proceedings in support of a party, TM adds. Bass noted that, to his knowledge, sanctions cases have never been challenged by a single country. The lawyer also stressed that “no one thinks for a second that the General Court of the CJEU is negligent or indulgent towards those who have been sanctioned by the EU since the beginning of the war.” In fact, all complaints from sanctioned entities filed since February 2022 have been rejected. Avena’s representatives managed to demonstrate to the court “how unique its situation is and how unfounded the EU Council’s accusations are”, so the court’s decision to lift the sanctions is “both in law and in fact extremely well argued”. Asked whether Aven would be able to claim compensation from Latvia if he wins his appeal, Bass said that “other than covering his lawyers’ fees, which he will absolutely demand, it will depend on a number of variables, but in theory, yes.” The law requires the loser to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the winning party, unless the court orders otherwise. “In the vast majority of cases, the court obliges the losing party to cover these costs, especially if the losing party is an EU institution or a Member State,” the lawyer explained, stressing that I see no reason why it should be otherwise in this case. Furthermore, LETA had previously assured TM that the CJEU does not decide on the recovery of compensation in appeal proceedings, but can decide on the recovery of court costs, which depends on the outcome of the proceedings. Avena’s lawyer did not specify the exact amount of the costs, because the legal proceedings are still ongoing, but they could reach up to two million euros. Bass is one of the lawyers who signed the open letter to EU officials calling for the rule of law in sanctions proceedings. According to him, the Council of the EU fails to respect the rule of law in sanctions review and often ignores court decisions declaring them illegal. “We want to underline with this letter that the Council of the EU is expanding its powers by amending the sanctions rules after the courts overturned the original sanctions decisions, and continues to sanction individuals on the basis of weak or unchanged evidence,” the lawyer explained. According to him, such behavior leads to the fact that sanctions are continuously applied without taking into account legal remedies, which is contrary to the principles of the rule of law. It has already been reported that the CJEU annulled the EU Council’s decision on sanctions imposed on Aven and another billionaire Mihailo Fridman on 28 February 2022. In its judgment, the CJEU held that none of the grounds contained in the initial legal acts for imposing sanctions on Aven and Friedman were sufficiently substantiated and that their inclusion in the lists of sanctioned persons was therefore not justified. As regards their subsequent permanence on the CJEU sanctions lists, the General Court found that the Council of the EU had not provided any additional evidence to that originally invoked. Aven and Fridman are shareholders of “Alfa Group”. This group includes Alfa Bank, one of the largest Russian banks. The Court considers that, although the arguments put forward by the Council of the EU may demonstrate some sort of connection between Aven and Friedman with Kremlin master Vladimir Putin or persons close to him, they do not make it possible to demonstrate that they supported actions or policies undermining or threatening Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence, or that they provided material or financial support to Russian officials responsible for the annexation of Crimea. Avena’s representative, lawyer Jānis Kārkliņš, had previously expressed his opinion to LETA that the imposition of sanctions at the beginning of the war was a justified political action, but that in the future the sanctions policy should be improved so that it is more effective and targeted. That is, it should be assessed whether the fact that the company in which Aven is a minority member pays taxes in Russia means that he supports the war. “If this is the case, then all Western companies working in Russia also support the annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of Ukraine,” the lawyer said. Sanctions against Aven and Friedman are reportedly renewed every six months, and they essentially have the right to appeal that decision, but so far they have not done so. Aven and Friedman have been sanctioned by the United States, Britain, the European Union and other countries, because these countries believe that they are people close to Russian dictator Putin and serve the interests of the Kremlin, including Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Ukraine has also imposed its own sanctions on Friedman and Aven. Aven also has Latvian citizenship and has been living in Latvia with his family since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 2024-09-18 08:58:06