Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62024TN0240

Case T-240/24: Action brought on 7 May 2024 – MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council

OJ C, C/2024/3794, 24.6.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3794/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3794/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/3794

24.6.2024

Action brought on 7 May 2024 – MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council

(Case T-240/24)

(C/2024/3794)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OAO Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod - upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768 of 26 February 2024 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 of 26 February 2024 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (2), insofar as they concern and affect 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 the illegality of Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006 and Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, as amended by the contested acts (hereafter, “Criterion 4(1)(b)”).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative an error of assessment in the application of Criterion 4(1)(b) and a failure to comply with the burden of proof.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

(1)  OJ L 2024/768.

(2)  OJ L 2024/769.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3794/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

Top