Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62022TN0534

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.

—

The reasons for listing of the applicant contain a number of terms, which are defined neither in the Contested Acts nor in jurisprudence. In view of this, their meaning is not clear to the applicant, and it cannot unambiguously understand them and decide how to act in the context of the measures taken against it by the Council.

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.

—

Most of the evidence adduced by the Council are unreliable, inaccurate, or not related to the applicant or the reasons for listing.

—

The Council failed to demonstrate the manner in which the applicant benefits from or supports the Lukashenka regime. Therefore, the Council failed to prove that the applicant benefits from or supports the Lukashenka regime.

4.

Fourth plea in law, violation of the principle of proportionality.

(1)  OJ 2022, L 153, p. 77.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 153, p. 1.

Top