(AGENPARL) – Wed 10 September 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 115/25
Luxembourg, 10 September 2025
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-573/23 | Positive Group v Council
War in Ukraine: the General Court upholds the restrictive measures
against Positive Group PAO, an entity operating in the Russian IT sector
with a license issued by Russia’s domestic intelligence services
Further to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine in 2022, the European Union adopted a series of restrictive
measures. In 2023, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision 1 extending the criteria under which
persons or entities may be targeted by those measures. A new criterion (‘the IT criterion’) thus serves to freeze the
funds and economic resources of entities operating in the Russian IT sector with a license administered by the
Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) Centre for Licensing, Certification, and Protection of State
Secrets or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ licence administered by the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade.
It is on that basis that Positive Group PAO was included on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures in
June 2023, and that its name was maintained on those lists in September 2023 and in March and September 2024. A
holding company of a Russian conglomerate comprising AO Pozitiv Teknolodzhiz, Positive Group PAO operates in
the IT and cybersecurity sector and holds a license administered by the FSB.
Positive Group PAO sought annulment of the inclusion and maintenance of its name on those lists. In its judgment
delivered today, the General Court dismisses the action.
As regards Positive Group PAO’s challenge to the legality of the IT criterion, the General Court rules, in the first
place, that the criterion is consistent with the principles of foreseeability and legal certainty in so far as it clearly and
objectively defines a limited category of persons: entities operating in the Russian IT sector which hold a licence
from the FSB or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ license.
In the second place, the General Court finds that the IT criterion is not manifestly disproportionate in the light of the
objectives pursued by the restrictive measures. That criterion is in fact necessary to the objective of increasing the
pressure exerted on the Russian authorities to bring an end to their actions and, in particular, to information
warfare. By having ties to the Russian security services, those legal persons, entities or bodies contribute, directly or
indirectly, to Russia’s capacity to pursue its actions and policies undermining or threatening the territorial integrity,
sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The General Court states, in that connection, that the IT criterion,
inasmuch as it does not require that the Council establish actual participation in those actions on the part of the
entity concerned, is not manifestly inappropriate having regard to those objectives and therefore cannot be
considered disproportionate.
In the third place, the General Court finds that the criterion at issue is not a disproportionate interference in the
freedom to conduct a business. Having regard to the essential objectives of the restrictive measures, the Council
was able to consider, without overstepping the bounds of its discretion, that the interference resulting from that
criterion was appropriate and necessary for the purposes of increasing pressure Russia.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
As regards the errors of assessment relied upon, the General Court states that the person designated in the acts
of the Council is Positive Group PAO as an entity and not as a legal person. Even though its subsidiary is legally
distinct, the Council could validly take the view that Positive Group PAO exercised decisive influence over that
subsidiary, and that the latter was not an independent entity. As that subsidiary holds a license from the FSB, the
conditions under the IT criterion are met in respect of Positive Group PAO as an entity. The General Court therefore
finds that the Council did not make an error of assessment by including and maintaining the name of Positive Group
PAO on the lists.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to EU law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions,
bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act
is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.
NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The full text and, as the case may be, the abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Article 2(1)(i) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1218 of 23 June 2023, amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of
actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
Communications Directorate