This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0380
Case T-380/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
Case T-380/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
Case T-380/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
OJ C 261, 11.8.2014, p. 37–38
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
11.8.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 261/37 |
Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
(Case T-380/14)
2014/C 261/62
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they concern the applicant and, more specifically, order:
|
— |
partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they do not conform to the Joint Proposal; |
— |
order the Council to bear the costs of this suit and award costs to 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 lack of competence of the Council and infringement of the natural judge’s competences as:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging obvious errors in the appreciation of the facts. The applicant submits that no investigation was initiated against him in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and/or their illegal transfer outside Ukraine before or at the moment of the adoption of the contested measures. Moreover, the applicant alleges that even if the alleged investigation did exist, it would not have any factual or legal basis and would be exclusively politically motivated. Finally, the applicant claims that the reasons given by the Council for listing the applicant do not meet the conditions set by the contested measures and are not supported by any evidence. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The applicant submits that:
|