20.6.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 237/72 |
Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Russian Direct Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-235/22)
(2022/C 237/93)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Russian Direct Investment Fund (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: K. Scordis and A. Gavrielides, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
pursuant to Article 263 TFEU annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022 amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (1) (the Contested Decision); and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (2) (the Contested Regulation; together, the Contested Acts), in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant; |
— |
alternatively, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare that paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 4b of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (as amended) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2e of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (as amended) are inapplicable and/or void in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and annul the Contested Decision and the Contested Regulation in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging absence of a ‘sufficiently solid factual basis’ for imposing the restrictive measures concerning the applicant. The Council manifestly failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the decision to impose the restrictive measures imposed with respect to the applicant or engagement with or co-operation with the applicant was taken on ‘a sufficiently solid factual basis’. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence and effective judicial protection. In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection in that:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement in the form of disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business. In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business in that:
|