EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0534
Case T-534/22: Action brought on 30 August 2022 — Belarusian Potash Company v Council
Case T-534/22: Action brought on 30 August 2022 — Belarusian Potash Company v Council
Case T-534/22: Action brought on 30 August 2022 — Belarusian Potash Company v Council
OJ C 389, 10.10.2022, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
10.10.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 389/23 |
Action brought on 30 August 2022 — Belarusian Potash Company v Council
(Case T-534/22)
(2022/C 389/26)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Belarusian Potash Company AAT (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1), insofar as it concerns the applicant; |
— |
annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (2), insofar as it concerns the applicant (together, the ‘Contested Acts’); and |
— |
order the Council to bear the full 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 four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Acts violate the principle of legality.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, violation of the principle of proportionality. |