Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62023TN0287

Case T-287/23: Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council

OJ C 252, 17.7.2023, p. 70–71 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
24/05/2023
Date lodged:
24/05/2023
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
Applicant:
Person
Defendant:
Institutions, Council
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
  • Partial annulment request 32006R0675 annex VIII
  • Partial annulment request 32006R0675 article 1i
  • Partial annulment request 32012D0642 article 2g paragraph 1
  • Partial annulment request 32012D0642 article 2g paragraph 1a
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

17.7.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/70

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council

(Case T-287/23)

(2023/C 252/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB (Klaipeda, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Articles 2g(1) and 2g(1a) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2023/421/CFSP, insofar as its restrictions on transfer of potash from Belarus and the restrictions on the ability of EU operators to provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance in connection with the same (together, the ‘Relevant Restrictions’) prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, in particular through the sea the port of Klaipeda.

—

annul Article 1i and Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2023/421/CFSP, insofar as the Relevant Restrictions prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, in particular through the sea the port of Klaipeda.

—

order the Council to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for its defence.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the principle of legality and legal certainty.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the EU’s WTO obligations insofar as they restrict transit of goods via the EU’s territory to other WTO Members in breach of Article V:2 of the GATT 1994.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts, insofar as they prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, are in violation of the Agreement on the Conditions of Transit of cargo from the Republic of Belarus using the ports and other transport infrastructure of the Republic of Lithuania.

4.

Forth plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the freedom of transit provided for in the United Nations on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’).

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of the right of the Applicant to pursue a trade and of the principle of proportionality.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations.
Top