Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) in the case T-519/25 dated 5 October 2026

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

5 October 2026 ( * )

( Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of Russia’s destabilising activities – Dissolution of the applicant during the proceedings – No need to adjudicate in part – Partial inadmissibility )

In Case T‑519/25,

Stark Industries Solutions Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by V. Ostrovskis and C. Cauvin, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by A. Boggio-Tomasaz and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents, and by E. Raoult, lawyer,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of S. Kingston, President, A. Marcoulli (Rapporteur) and J. Hettne, Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

makes the following

Order

1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Stark Industries Solutions Ltd, seeks annulment, in so far as they concern it, (i) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966 of 20 May 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/966) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/965 of 20 May 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/965) (‘the initial acts’); and (ii) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2019 of 3 October 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/2019) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2021 of 3 October 2025 implementing Regulation 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2025/2021) (‘the maintaining acts’ and, together with the initial acts, ‘the contested acts’).

Background to the dispute

2 The present case has been brought in connection with the restrictive measures adopted in response to Russia’s destabilising activities.

3 By the initial acts, the applicant’s name was included on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures under heading B of the annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 of 8 October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2024/2643) and under heading B of Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 of 8 October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities (OJ L, 2024/2642) (together, ‘the lists at issue’).

4 In the initial acts, the Council of the European Union identified the applicant as being ‘Stark Industries Solutions Ltd.’, established in London (United Kingdom) and registered in the register of companies on 10 February 2022, and gave the following grounds as justification for adopting the restrictive measures against it:

‘Stark Industries Solutions Ltd. is a web hosting service registered as a maildrop company in the United Kingdom. Stark Industries Solutions Ltd. is owned and operated by the Moldavian nationals Ivan Neculiti and Iurie Neculiti, through the web hosting service PQ Hosting. The company provides server hosting, with server locations all over the world.

Stark enables various Russian state-sponsored and state-affiliated actors to conduct destabilising activities, including coordinated information manipulation and interference and cyber-attacks against the [European] Union and third countries, by providing services intended to hide those activities from European law enforcement and security agencies.

Therefore, Stark Industries Solutions Ltd. is supporting actions by the Government of the Russian Federation which threaten democracy and the rule of law, stability or security in the [European] Union, in one of its Member States and a third country, by facilitating the use of coordinated information manipulation and interference and by facilitating actions targeted at the functioning of democratic institutions, economic activities or services of public interest.

Stark is associated with Ivan Neculiti and Iurie Neculiti.’

5 On 21 May 2025, the Council published a Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in the initial acts (OJ C, 2025/2950). By letter of the same date, the Council sent the applicant individual notification that its name had been included on the lists at issue, enclosing copies of the initial acts containing the grounds for that listing. In that letter, the Council informed the applicant that it could request reconsideration of the decision to include its name on the lists at issue. To that end, the Council invited the applicant to submit observations by 1 July 2025. The Council also informed the applicant of the possibility of challenging that decision before the General Court.

6 On 30 July 2025, the applicant brought an action seeking annulment of the initial acts in so far as they concern it.

Events subsequent to the bringing of the action

7 On 19 August 2025, the applicant submitted its observations to the Council relating to its designation in the initial acts.

8 On 3 October 2025, the Council adopted the maintaining acts. The grounds justifying the applicant’s listing were not changed. The lawyers appointed in the application were informed of those acts by a letter from the Council of 7 October 2025.

9 By a letter of 24 October 2025, the lawyers appointed in the application informed the Council that the applicant had been liquidated. They enclosed an extract from the register of companies in the United Kingdom (Companies House) showing that the applicant had been dissolved on 16 September 2025. For that reason, they requested the removal of the applicant’s name from the lists at issue.

10 On 17 December 2025, the lawyers appointed in the application lodged a statement of modification, under Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking annulment also of the maintaining acts and referring to the fact that the applicant had been liquidated as an argument justifying its removal from the lists at issue.

11 In the rejoinder, although not formally raising a procedural issue under Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure, the Council questioned the admissibility of the action on the ground that the applicant could no longer be considered to have a direct interest in bringing proceedings because it had been dissolved.

12 By a measure of organisation of procedure, served on the lawyers appointed in the application and on the Council on 6 March 2026, the Court, inter alia, invited the parties to confirm that the applicant had been dissolved and the date of that dissolution and to submit their observations on whether, as a result of that dissolution, the Court should find, under Article 131(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate.

Procedure and forms of order sought

13 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the initial acts, in so far as its name was included on the lists at issue;

– order the Council to pay the costs.

14 In the statement of modification, the lawyers appointed in the application claim that the Court should:

– annul the maintaining acts, in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the lists at issue;

– order the Council to pay the costs.

15 The Council claims that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs;

– in the alternative, order that the effects of Decision 2025/966 be maintained in so far as concerns the applicant until the annulment in part of Implementing Regulation 2025/965 takes effect.

16 In its observations submitted on 21 March 2026, in response to the measure of organisation of procedure referred to in paragraph 12 above, the Council stated that the applicant had ceased to exist in law as a result of its dissolution and that, pursuant to Article 78(4) of the Rules of Procedure, it could not remain a party to the present proceedings.

17 In their observations submitted on 20 March 2026, the lawyers appointed in the application stated that it was still appropriate to rule in the present proceedings on the grounds, first, that when it maintained the applicant’s name on the lists at issue, the Council had considered it to have a sufficient existence in law to be subject to sanctions and that, in the interests of consistency and justice, the applicant should be recognised as existing in law for the purposes of challenging its inclusion on those lists. They added that the dissolution of the applicant was precisely one of the arguments submitted in support of annulment of the contested acts.

18 Second, the lawyers appointed in the application stated that the annulment of the contested acts in so far as they concern the applicant would have a direct and meaningful impact on the situation of Mr Ivan Neculiti and Mr Iurie Neculiti, whose names are also included on the lists at issue as the applicant’s owner and chief executive officer respectively.

Law

19 Pursuant to Article 131(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court may at any time, of its own motion, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the parties, find that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it. In addition, under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, decide at any time to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

20 It should be borne in mind in that regard that, in accordance with Article 78(4) of the Rules of Procedure, legal persons governed by private law are required to prove their existence in law, by enclosing with their application proof of that existence, such as an extract from the register of companies, firms or associations or any other official document. That requirement also applies to legal persons who bring an action for annulment against an EU act imposing restrictive measures on them (judgment of 15 June 2017, Al-Faqih and Others v Commission , C‑19/16 P, EU:C:2017:466, paragraph 32).

21 In the present case, although the applicant had, on the date on which the action was brought, established its existence in law by producing an extract from the register of companies in the United Kingdom (Companies House), it is common ground that the company was dissolved on 16 September 2025.

22 In those circumstances, given that the applicant has not existed in law since 16 September 2025, it has no longer, from that date, had the capacity to bring legal proceedings before the General Court. Therefore, first, the statement of modification seeking annulment of the maintaining acts, which was lodged on 17 December 2025, that is to say, after the applicant had been dissolved, must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. Second, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it was brought in respect of the initial acts (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 June 2017, Al-Faqih and Others v Commission , C‑19/16 P, EU:C:2017:466, paragraphs 35 and 42, and order of 22 January 2018, Italy and Others v Commission , T‑125/13, T‑152/13 and T‑167/13, not published, EU:T:2018:35, paragraph 38).

23 The following considerations do not cast doubt on those findings.

24 In the first place, because it has been established that the applicant no longer exists in law, it cannot derive any benefit from the approach taken by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 18 January 2007, PKK and KNK v Council (C‑229/05 P, EU:C:2007:32) (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 June 2017, Al-Faqih and Others v Commission , C‑19/16 P, EU:C:2017:466, paragraph 39).

25 Admittedly, the Court held in paragraph 112 of the judgment of 18 January 2007, PKK and KNK v Council (C‑229/05 P, EU:C:2007:32), that, if the EU legislature had taken the view that an entity whose existence had been called into question retained a sufficient existence for it to be subject to restrictive measures, it had to be accepted, on grounds of consistency and justice, that that entity continued to have a sufficient existence to contest those measures, on the grounds that the effect of any other assessment would be that an entity could be included in the list of persons subject to those measures without being able to bring an action challenging that inclusion (judgment of 15 June 2017, Al-Faqih and Others v Commission , C‑19/16 P, EU:C:2017:466, paragraph 40).

26 The fact remains that the applicant’s situation is different from that of the entity in question in the case that gave rise to the judgment of 18 January 2007, PKK and KNK v Council (C‑229/05 P, EU:C:2007:32), since the Court of Justice held, in paragraph 53 of that judgment, that the General Court’s findings of fact in the order under appeal, to the effect that the entity concerned had been dissolved, were incorrect and distorted the clear sense of the evidence available to the General Court (judgment of 15 June 2017, Al-Faqih and Others v Commission , C‑19/16 P, EU:C:2017:466, paragraph 41).

27 It should be added that, although it is for the Council to determine any legal consequences that the applicant’s ceasing to exist may have for the maintenance of its name on the lists at issue, the maintenance of the applicant’s name has no bearing on the fact that the latter has lost its capacity to bring legal proceedings, as is clear from paragraph 22 above.

28 In the second place, the consequences of the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue for Mr Ivan Neculiti and Mr Iurie Neculiti, who are not parties to the present action, are not such as to justify the proceedings being continued notwithstanding the applicant’s loss of the capacity to bring legal proceedings.

29 In that regard, the lawfulness of the inclusion on the lists at issue of the names of Mr Ivan Neculiti and Mr Iurie Neculiti, as the applicant’s owner and chief executive officer respectively and on the ground that they are associated with the applicant, can be challenged independently of the assessment of the lawfulness of the contested acts in the present action. Separate actions for annulment have in fact been brought before the General Court in respect of the listing of Mr Ivan Neculiti and of Mr Iurie Neculiti.

30 In addition, the fact that the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue might have at least non-material consequences for Mr Ivan Neculiti and Mr Iurie Neculiti is, even assuming it were to be established, irrelevant since it has been neither established nor even argued that they have taken over the present action as successors to the applicant (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 15 June 2017, Al-Faqih and Others v Commission , C‑19/16 P, EU:C:2017:466, paragraph 38).

31 In those circumstances, the lawyers who were instructed to represent the applicant no longer have a principal from which they could validly take instructions in accordance with Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute.

32 In the light of the foregoing, first, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action in so far as it seeks annulment of the initial acts and, second, the remainder of the claims must be rejected as being manifestly inadmissible.

Costs

33 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.

34 Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, in particular the fact that the applicant has been dissolved, the General Court finds that, although the applicant has been in part unsuccessful, each party should be ordered to bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966 of 20 May 2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/965 of 20 May 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities.

2. The remainder of the claims in the action are rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

3. Stark Industries Solutions Ltd and the Council of the European Union shall each bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 5 October 2026

V. Di Bucci

S. Kingston

Registrar

President

* Language of the case: English.