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 62014TN0731

Case T-731/14: Action brought on 17 October 2014 — Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia v Council

OJ C 16, 19.1.2015, p. 41–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/41

Action brought on 17 October 2014 — Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia v Council

(Case T-731/14)

(2015/C 016/64)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Agrotikos Sinetairismos Profiti Ilia (Skidra, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysogonos, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the contested Council Regulation (ΕU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014. L 229, p. 1) and declare that the claim for annulment should be admissible in so far as the General Court of the European Union decides that all the conditions for the admissibility of the action for annulment are met; and

—

declare that the Council is liable to meet the costs incurred by the applicant and order the Council to pay its costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

1.

The ground for annulment is an error in the choice of legal basis:

—

The applicant maintains that the contested regulation was erroneously adopted on the legal basis of Article 215 TFEU, although it is apparent from the objective and content of the regulation that it ought to have been adopted on the basis of Article 207 TFEU (formerly Article 133 EC) with regard to the common commercial policy and, consequently, ought to have been adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The applicant’s legal interest to bring proceedings is based on the fact that the contested measure is a regulatory act which does not entail any implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and is of direct concern to the applicant.
Top