ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT

16 September 2026 (*)

( Confidentiality – Challenge by an intervener )

In Case T‑691/25,

Bank 131 JSC, established in Kazan (Russia), represented by V. Ostrovskis and C. Cauvin, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by P. Pecheux and by L. Berger, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

European Commission, represented by M. Carpus-Carcea and by A. de Elera‑San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents,

intervener,

makes the following

Order

1        By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Bank 131 JSC, seeks annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/1495 of 18 July 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/1495) and of Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L, 2025/1494), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

 Procedure

2        On 8 October 2025, the applicant brought the present action.

3        By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 13 January 2026, the European Commission applied to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council of the European Union.

4        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 6 February 2026, the applicant did not oppose the intervention of the Commission, but stated that it sought to bring a request for confidential treatment vis-à-vis that institution under Article 144(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

5        By order of 3 March 2026, the President of the Fifth Chamber granted the Commission leave to intervene. In accordance with Article 144(5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, that order provisionally limited the disclosure of documents to non-confidential versions produced by the applicant.

6        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 20 March 2026, the applicant requested confidential treatment of certain information contained in the application and in the statement of modification, as well as in some of the annexes to the application, to the reply and to the statement of modification.

7        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 14 April 2026, the Commission challenged the request for confidential treatment of certain information in certain annexes to the application.

 The request for confidential treatment

 The purpose of the request for confidential treatment

8        The request for confidential treatment submitted by the applicant vis-à-vis the Commission concerns certain data and information contained in the schedule of annexes to the application, in Annexes A.8 and A.17 to the application, in Annexes C.13 and C.14 to the reply, as well as in the statement of modification and in Annex D.5 to that statement.

9        First, in the schedule of annexes to the application, the applicant requests confidential treatment vis-à-vis the Commission of the name of the legal person referred to in the description of Annex A.17.

10      Second, in the annexes to the application, the applicant requests confidential treatment vis-à-vis the Commission of the following items:

–        the name of the legal person referred to in the final line of the tables set out at pages 193 and 220 of Annex A.8;

–        the name of the legal person referred to at page 665, namely the cover page of Annex A.17;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 204 to 231 of Annex A.8 and at page 666 of Annex A.17, the surname, first name and signature of the author of that letter and the names of two legal persons referred to in the third paragraph of that letter;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 205 and 232 of Annex A.8 and at page 667 of Annex A.17, the surname, first name, signature and email address of the author of that letter and the names of two legal persons referred to in the fifth paragraph of that letter;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 206 and 233 of Annex A.8 and at page 668 of Annex A.17, the surname, first name, signature, email address and telephone number of the author of that letter and the names of two legal persons referred to in the third paragraph of that letter;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 207 and 234 of Annex A.8 and at page 669 of Annex A.17, the surname, first name, signature and email address of the author of that letter and the names of two legal persons referred to in the second paragraph of that letter;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 208 and 235 of Annex A.8 and at page 670 of Annex A.17, the surname, first name, signature, names of two online media outlets and the name of a legal person referred to in the third paragraph of that letter;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 209 and 236 of Annex A.8 and at page 671 of Annex A.17, the name of a legal person, its logo, its postal address, its email address and the surname, first name and signature of its director.

11      Third, in the annexes to the reply, the applicant requests confidential treatment vis-à-vis the Commission of the names of the legal persons referred to at page 422 of Annex C.13 and at pages 424 to 426 of Annex C.14.

12      Fourth, the applicant requests confidential treatment vis-à-vis the Commission of the name of the legal person referred to in point 8 of paragraph 149 of the statement of modification.

13      Fifth, in Annex D.5 to the statement of modification, the applicant requests confidential treatment vis-à-vis the Commission of the names of the legal persons referred to at pages 52 to 55 of that annex.

 Basic considerations

14      Under Article 144(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, ‘if the application to intervene is granted, the intervener shall receive a copy of every procedural document served on the main parties, save, where applicable, for the confidential information excluded from such communication pursuant to paragraph 5.’

15      That provision lays down the principle that interveners are to receive a copy of every pleading served on the parties and permits only by way of derogation that certain secret or confidential documents or information may be excluded from that communication (see order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).

16      Article 144(2) of the Rules of Procedure in fact permits the main parties to apply for certain confidential information in the file in the case not to be communicated to an intervener. In such a case, Article 144(5) of those rules provides that the President is to decide as soon as possible, by order, on the communication to the intervener of information which it is claimed is confidential.

17      In that connection, in the first place, it is settled case-law that the party submitting a request for confidential treatment must accurately identify the particulars or passages to be excluded, that that request must state the reasons for which each of those particulars or passages is regarded as confidential and that failure to provide such information may result in the request being refused by the Court (see, to that effect, order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).

18      In the second place, the President of the Chamber before which the case is pending must make a ruling only on the confidentiality of the documents or items of information in respect of which that application is disputed (see, to that effect, order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).

19      The challenge to confidentiality by the intervening parties must relate to precise items of the procedural documents which have been redacted and indicate the reasons for which confidentiality with regard to those items should be refused. Accordingly, a request for confidential treatment must be upheld in so far as it concerns information which has not been disputed by the intervener, or which has not been challenged expressly and precisely. However, notwithstanding the fact that there is no challenge, the Court cannot be prevented from rejecting requests for confidential treatment in so far as they concern data the public nature of which is manifestly apparent from the information in the file or the confidential nature of which, as a result of the disclosure of other information in the file, becomes manifestly obsolete. Thus, in certain circumstances, the President of the Chamber before which the case is pending may decide to rule on the uncontested aspects of a request for confidential treatment (order of 6 September 2022, enercity v Commission, T‑65/21, not published, EU:T:2022:540, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).

20      In the third place, in so far as an application submitted under Article 144(2) of the Rules of Procedure is challenged, the President of the Chamber before which the case is pending is required, first of all, to examine whether each of the documents and items of information, the confidentiality of which is challenged and for which an application for confidential treatment has been made, is secret or confidential (order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).

21      The requirement for the applicant to state reasons for the application for confidential treatment is to be assessed in the light of the secret or confidential nature of each document and item of information concerned. A distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, information which is inherently secret, such as business secrets of a commercial, competition-related, financial or accounting nature, or confidential, such as purely internal information, and, on the other hand, documents or information which may be secret or confidential for a reason that it is for the applicant to provide (order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).

22      Thus, the secret or confidential nature of documents or information for which no reasoning is given other than a description of their content will be accepted only in so far as that information may be considered to be inherently secret or confidential. The concept of business secrets covers, inter alia, information of a commercial, competition-related, financial or accounting nature which is not normally available to those not directly connected with the undertaking and which cannot, due to its age, be regarded as historic (order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraphs 17 and 18 and the case-law cited).

23      It should also be noted that personal data of natural persons, namely, inter alia, their surnames, first names, signatures, email addresses and telephone numbers, are, by their very nature, confidential (see, to that effect, orders of 2 December 2021, OHB System v Commission, T‑54/21, not published, EU:T:2021:878, paragraphs 37 and 38, and of 15 June 2023, Iliad Italia v Commission, T‑692/20, not published, EU:T:2023:352, paragraph 57).

24      In the fourth place, where his or her examination leads him or her to conclude that some of the documents and information the confidentiality of which is disputed are secret or confidential, the President of the Chamber before which the case is pending is then to assess and weigh up the competing interests for each document and piece of information. Accordingly, where confidential treatment is requested in the interests of the applicant, the President of the Chamber before which the case is pending weighs in the balance, for each document or item of information, the applicant’s legitimate concern to prevent serious harm to its interests and the equally legitimate concern of the interveners that they should have the information necessary for exercising their procedural rights (order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraphs 20 and 21 and the case-law cited).

25      In any event, the applicant must, in view of the adversarial and public nature of judicial proceedings, envisage the possibility that some of the secret or confidential documents or information which it has decided to place on the file may appear necessary for the exercise of the interveners’ procedural rights and, consequently, must be disclosed to the latter (order of 13 December 2023, SBK Art v Council, T‑102/23, not published, EU:T:2023:809, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

26      It is in the light of those principles that the applicant’s request for confidential treatment vis-à-vis the Commission must be examined.

 The items the confidential treatment of which is not challenged by the Commission

27      It should be noted that the Commission does not challenge the confidential treatment of the legal persons referred to in Annexes C.13 and C.14 to the reply, and in Annex D.5 to the statement of modification.

28      Accordingly, in the light of the principles set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 above and the circumstances of the present case, the application for confidential treatment must be granted in so far as concerns the names of the legal persons referred to in Annexes C.13 and C.14 to the reply and in Annex D.5 to the statement of modification.

 The challenge to the request for confidential treatment

29      The applicant requests the confidential treatment of the information which makes it possible to identify the natural and legal persons referred to in the letters reproduced in Annexes A.8 and A.17 to the application.

30      First, as regards the data enabling the identification of natural persons, the applicant takes the view that the confidential treatment of those personal data is necessary to protect their privacy and their legitimate interests. Second, as regards the legal persons referred to in Annexes A.8 and A.17, the applicant submits that that is confidential information relating to its clients or its contracting partners, the disclosure of which is likely to prejudice their legitimate interests, as well as the confidentiality obligations which bind financial institutions, in particular those arising from legislation on banking secrecy. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the disclosure of the identity of the natural persons and the names of the legal persons is not necessary for the Commission to be able to assess the probative value of the letters reproduced in Annexes A.8 and A.17.

31      The Commission objects to the confidential treatment of the names of the authors of the letters reproduced in Annexes A.8 and A.17. In its view, the authors of those letters did not intend to confine the disclosure thereof to the Council. In addition, it observes that the letter drawn up on behalf of a legal person contains a statement intended to establish that that letter cannot be regarded as confidential vis-à-vis the Commission. In any event, even if that information were to be regarded as confidential, the Commission argues that the waiver of that confidentiality is necessary to enable it to assess the probative value of those letters.

32      In the first place, as the Commission correctly argues, it must be held that the letter drawn up on behalf of a legal person by its director contains an explicit statement that the letter is addressed, inter alia, to the Commission. Consequently, even though that legal person, as a client of the applicant, enjoys the protection of confidentiality vis-à-vis third parties, and though the first name, the surname and the signature of the director of that legal person, who is a natural person, are personal data which are, by their very nature, confidential (see the case-law cited in paragraph 23 above), it must be held that, by including that statement in the letter, the director of that legal person explicitly waived, vis-à-vis the Commission, the obligation of confidentiality to which the applicant is subject with regard to that legal person, and consented to the disclosure to the Commission of its personal data contained in that letter. Accordingly, contrary to the applicant’s claim, no part of the letter reproduced at pages 209 and 236 of Annex A.8 and at page 671 of Annex A.17 is secret or confidential vis-à-vis the Commission.

33      In addition, it should be noted that the legal person on whose behalf the letter mentioned in paragraph 30 above was drawn up is the same legal person as that referred to in the request for confidential treatment regarding the description of Annex A.17 in the schedule of annexes to the application and at page 665 of that annex. It is also the same legal person as that whose name is referred to at pages 193 and 220 of Annex A.8, and in point 8 of paragraph 149 of the statement of modification. However, given that the director of that legal person has explicitly waived the confidentiality of that legal person vis-à-vis the Commission, that information cannot be considered as secret or confidential vis-à-vis that institution.

34      Furthermore, it must be stated that the legal person on whose behalf the letter referred to in paragraph 30 above was drawn up is referred to in four of the five letters written by natural persons, which letters are reproduced in Annexes A.8 and A.17. In the letter referred to in paragraph 32 above, the economic activities of that legal person are described, and in particular those relating to natural persons such as those who drafted those four letters. Thus, since the letter referred to in paragraph 32 above was addressed, inter alia, to the Commission, the references to that legal person in the letters drafted by natural persons, reproduced at pages 204 to 207 and 231 to 234 of Annex A.8 and at pages 665 to 669 of Annex A.17, cannot be regarded as secret or confidential vis-à-vis that institution.

35      In the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 30 to 32above, the application for confidential treatment must be rejected in so far as concerns (i) the redacted data in the letter reproduced at pages 209 and 236 of Annex A.8 and at page 671 of Annex A.17, (ii) the reference to the legal person referred to in the description of Annex A.17 in the schedule of annexes to the application, at pages 193 and 220 of Annex A.8 and in point 8 of paragraph 149 of the statement of modification, and (iii) the redactions of the name of that legal person in the letters reproduced at pages 204 to 207 and 231 to 234 of Annex A.8 and at pages 665 to 669 of Annex A.17.

36      In the second place, having regard to the case-law cited in paragraph 23 above, in the letters drafted by natural persons which are not addressed to the Commission, the surnames, first names and signatures in the letters reproduced at pages 204 to 208 and 231 to 235 of Annex A.8 and at pages 666 to 670 of Annex A.17, the email addresses referred to at pages 205 to 207 and 232 to 234 of Annex A.8 and at pages 667 to 669 of Annex A.17, and the telephone number referred to in the letter reproduced at pages 206 and 233 of Annex A.8 and at page 668 of Annex A.17 must be regarded as secret and confidential. In addition, given that the disclosure of the names of the online media outlets referred to in the letter reproduced at pages 208 and 235 of Annex A.8 and at page 670 of Annex A.17 would make it possible to identify the natural person who drafted that letter, it must also be held that those names must be regarded as confidential.

37      Thus, in accordance with the principles recalled in paragraphs 24 and 25 above, the interest, on the one hand, of the natural persons who drafted the letters reproduced in Annexes A.8 and A.17 in not having their interests seriously prejudiced and, on the other hand, of the Commission in having all of the information necessary for the exercise of its procedural rights as an intervener, must be weighed up. In the present case, it should be noted that those letters were produced, in particular, by the applicant in order to support a line of argument put forward in the context of the first plea in law alleging an error of assessment. In addition, it is clear from the case-law that, in order to assess the probative value of a document, regard should be had to the credibility of the account that it contains and, in particular, to the person from whom the document originates, the circumstances in which it came into being, the person to whom it was addressed and whether, on its face, the document appears to be sound and reliable (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 November 2023, OT v Council, T‑193/22, EU:T:2023:716, paragraph 114 and the case-law cited). However, in the absence of information making it possible to identify the natural persons who drafted the letters produced by the applicant, the Commission could not determine the persons from whom those letters originate and, consequently, could not determine their probative value.

38      It follows that, in order to enable the Commission to exercise its procedural rights in the present case, it is necessary to disclose to it the personal data necessary to determine the origin of the letter drawn up by the natural persons, namely the surnames, first names and signatures of the authors of the letters reproduced at pages 204 to 208 and 231 to 235 of Annex A.8 and at pages 666 to 670 of Annex A.17, and the names of the online media outlets referred to in the letter reproduced at pages 208 and 235 of Annex A.8 and at page 670 of Annex A.17. In that regard, it should be recalled that the Commission is to use the procedural documents communicated to it solely for the purpose of exercising its procedural rights in the present case (see, to that effect, order of 30 January 2017, Syngenta Crop Protection and Others v Commission, T‑451/13, not published, EU:T:2017:112, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).

39      However, in order to enable the Commission to exercise its procedural rights in the present case, it is not necessary to disclose to it the email addresses referred to at pages 205 to 207 and 232 to 234 of Annex A.8 and at pages 667 to 669 of Annex A.17, or the telephone number referred to at pages 206 and 233 of Annex A.8 and at page 668 of Annex A.17. Those confidential personal data are not essential to forming an opinion on the origin of the letters drafted by the natural persons and, therefore, on the probative value of those letters.

40      In the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 36 and 39 above, first, the application for confidential treatment must be rejected in so far as it as concerns the surnames, first names and signatures of the authors of the letters reproduced at pages 204 to 208 and 231 to 235 of Annex A.8 and at pages 666 to 670 of Annex A.17, and the names of the online media outlets referred to in the letter reproduced at pages 208 and 235 of Annex A.8 and at page 670 of Annex A.17. Second, the application for confidential treatment must be granted in so far as it concerns the email addresses referred to at pages 205 to 207 and 232 to 234 of Annex A.8 and at pages 667 to 669 of Annex A.17, as well as the telephone number referred to in the letter reproduced at pages 206 and 233 of Annex A.8 and at page 668 of Annex A.17.

41      In the third place, it should be noted that, in the letters drafted by natural persons which are not addressed to the Commission, the applicant requests confidential treatment of the name of a platform, namely a legal person which, unlike that in respect of whom the request for confidential treatment of data has been rejected (see paragraph 35 above), has not explicitly waived, vis-à-vis the Commission, the obligation of confidentiality to which the applicant is subject with regard to that person pursuant to the legislation on banking secrecy. Therefore, the applicant is correct to argue that, in the letters reproduced at pages 204 to 208 and 231 to 235 of Annex A.8 and at pages 666 to 670 of Annex A.17, the references to the name of that legal person are secret or confidential. The weighing up of interests leads to the conclusion that the name of that legal person in the letters drafted by natural persons is not essential to enabling the Commission to assess the probative value of those letters and therefore to exercise its procedural rights in the present case. In order to assess the credibility of the information contained in the letters drawn up by the natural persons, what matters is not so much the name of the legal person but the activity it carries out in the context of its business relations with those persons. It appears that that activity is described in each of the letters drawn up by the natural persons. Moreover, given that the request for confidential treatment was rejected in respect of the other legal person referred to in four of the five letters drawn up by the natural persons, the Commission has sufficient information to assess the probative value of those letters.

42      Accordingly, the application for confidential treatment must be granted in so far as it concerns the platform which did not explicitly waive confidentiality vis-à-vis the Commission, the name of which is referred to in the letters of the natural persons reproduced at pages 204 to 208 and 231 to 235 of Annex A.8 and at pages 666 to 670 of Annex A.17.

43      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, a period of time should be granted to enable the applicant to produce non-confidential versions of Annexes A.8 and A.17 in accordance with paragraphs 35, 40 and 42 above.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT

hereby orders:

1.      The application for confidential treatment made by Bank 131 JSC vis-à-vis the European Commission is granted in so far as concerns the following items:

–        in the third paragraph of the letter reproduced at pages 204 and 231 of Annex A.8 and at page 666 of Annex A.17, the name of the legal person subject to the first and third redactions;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 205 and 232 of Annex A.8 and at page 667 of Annex A.17, the redacted email address of the author of that letter, and, in the fifth paragraph of that letter, the name of the legal person subject to the first redaction;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 206 and 233 of Annex A.8 and at page 668 of Annex A.17, the email address and telephone number of the author of that letter and, in the third paragraph of that letter, the name of the legal person subject to the first redaction;

–        in the letter reproduced at pages 207 and 234 of Annex A.8 and at page 669 of Annex A.17, the email address of the author of that letter and, in the second paragraph of that letter, the name of the legal person subject to the first redaction;

–        in the third paragraph of the letter reproduced at pages 208 and 235 of Annex A.8 and at page 270 of Annex A.17, the name of the legal person subject to a redaction;

–        in the annexes to the reply, the information relating to the redacted names of the legal persons at page 422 of Annex C.13 and at pages 424 to 426 of Annex C.14;

–        in Annex D.5 to the statement of modification, the information relating to the redacted names of the legal persons at pages 52 to 55 of that annex.

2.      The application for confidential treatment is dismissed as to the remainder.

3.      A non-confidential version of the documents referred to above, in accordance with points 1 and 2 of the operative part, provided by Bank 131 within the time limit specified by the Registrar, shall be served by the Registrar on the Commission.

4.      The Registrar shall set a time limit for the Commission to submit any observations supplementing its statement of intervention lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 11 May 2026.

5.      The costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 16 September 2026

*      Language of the case: English.