This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0286
Case T-286/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council
Case T-286/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council
Case T-286/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council
OJ C 231, 17.7.2017, p. 38–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
17.7.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 231/38 |
Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council
(Case T-286/17)
(2017/C 231/47)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant(s)/appellant(s) claims/claim that the Court should:
— |
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 (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 34) insofar as it applies to the applicant; |
— |
annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 1) insofar as it applies to the applicant; |
— |
order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Council lacked a proper legal basis for the contested acts.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. In re-designating the applicant, notwithstanding the clear disconnect between the ‘statement of reasons’ and the relevant designation criteria, the Council has made a manifest error. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed adequately to consult with the applicant prior to the re-designation, and the applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or produce information relating to his personal circumstances. |
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights. |