27.6.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 244/43 |
Action brought on 6 May 2022 — Ponomarenko v Council
(Case T-249/22)
(2022/C 244/59)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Alexander Ponomarenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Komuczky, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 58, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
— |
order, pursuant to Article 134 the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging procedural error.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The measures adopted by the Council, in so far as they concern the applicant, are disproportionate, since they are not capable of achieving the objectives pursued by the Council. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to property. The applicant’s fundamental right to property has been infringed by the contested legal acts. The infringement is also not justified. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment. Since the applicant was included on the list, whereas many other businessmen in comparable positions were not, the Council infringed the principle of equal treatment by the contested acts. |