EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0743
Case T-743/22: Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Mazepin v Council
Case T-743/22: Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Mazepin v Council
Case T-743/22: Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Mazepin v Council
OJ C 35, 30.1.2023, p. 71–72
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
30.1.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 35/71 |
Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Mazepin v Council
(Case T-743/22)
(2023/C 35/93)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Nikita Dmitrievich Mazepin (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto, V. Villante, T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1); |
— |
annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 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); |
— |
annul the decision to maintain the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures under Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (3), as amended by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530, and under Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1529, concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; collectively referred to as the ‘Contested Acts’, in so far as the Contested Acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures. |
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 infringement of the obligation to state reasons; of Article 296 of the TFUE and of Article 41 (2) (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging error of appreciation. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment; failure to discharge the burden of proof; breach of the listing criteria set forth in Articles 1 (1) (e) and 2 (1) (g) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 and in Article 3 (1) (g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014, both concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and of the applicant’s fundamental rights; breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business and breach of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging breaches of essential procedural requirements; breach of the rights of the defence and of the council’s obligation to periodically review the sanctions. |