EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021TN0526

Case T-526/21: Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Gutseriev v Council

OJ C 422, 18.10.2021, p. 27–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.10.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/27


Action brought on 27 August 2021 — Gutseriev v Council

(Case T-526/21)

(2021/C 422/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, and D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul (i) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 70) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021, L 219 I, p. 3), insofar as they apply to the applicant (together, the ‘Contested Acts’);

declare that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the Applicant, the Contested Acts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in the contested measures is satisfied.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the rights to private life, defence, property and freedom to conduct business.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging illegality if the designation criterion in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation 765/2006 is to be interpreted to capture any form of support or any form of benefit.


Top