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 62017TN0258

Case T-258/17: Action brought on 3 May 2017 — Arbuzov v Council

OJ C 213, 3.7.2017, p. 35–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/35

Action brought on 3 May 2017 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-258/17)

(2017/C 213/47)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as it relates to Sergej Arbuzov;

—

order the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Sergej Arbuzov.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the right to good administration

—

The applicant bases his application inter alia on the fact that the Council of the European Union did not proceed with proper care when adopting Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017, since it did not, before adopting the contested decision, address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence presented by him which supported his case, and proceeded essentially on the basis of a brief summary by the Ukraine Chief Public Prosecutor’s office without requiring any additional information on the progress of the investigation in Ukraine.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s right to property

—

The applicant submits in this respect that the restrictions adopted with respect to him are disproportionate and unnecessary and breach the guarantees of international law protection of his right to property.
Top