This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0286
Case T-286/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
Case T-286/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
Case T-286/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
OJ C 240, 9.7.2018, p. 52–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case T-286/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
(Case T-286/18)
2018/C 240/60Language of the case: GermanParties
Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, 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) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
— |
order specific measures of organisation pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; and |
— |
order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
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 infringement of the principle of proportionality The applicant claims that the restrictive measures, which have now been ordered for the fifth time, are clearly disproportionate. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment The applicant submits that the Council did not have a sufficiently solid factual basis, as required pursuant to case-law, in order to take the decision to extend the restrictive measures. |