EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0309
Case T-309/22: Action brought on 25 May 2022 — PC v Council
Case T-309/22: Action brought on 25 May 2022 — PC v Council
Case T-309/22: Action brought on 25 May 2022 — PC v Council
OJ C 276, 18.7.2022, p. 17–18
(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:
- 25/05/2022
- Date lodged:
- 25/05/2022
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Partial annulment request 32022D0429
- Partial annulment request 32022R0427
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
18.7.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 276/17 |
Action brought on 25 May 2022 — PC v Council
(Case T-309/22)
(2022/C 276/25)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: PC (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, lawyers)
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) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions under-mining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 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 (2) (‘Contested Acts’) — in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts. The applicant alleges that:
|
— |
the Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed; |
|
— |
the Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations; |
|
— |
the evidence provided is insufficient to support the listing of the applicant by the way of the Contested Acts. |
