EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62023TN0283

Case T-283/23: Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Aven v Council

OJ C 235, 3.7.2023, p. 75–75 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.7.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/75


Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Aven v Council

(Case T-283/23)

(2023/C 235/89)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petr Aven (Klauģulejas, Latvia) (represented by: 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) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

order the Council to pay the costs.

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 essential procedural requirements and of the obligation to conduct a periodic review.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant submits that the Council has failed to substantiate any of the assertions in its statement of reasons and that the criterion relating to actively supporting actions and policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, that is, the criterion referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, has not been satisfied.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant submits that the Council has failed to substantiate any of the assertions in its statement of reasons and that the criterion relating to actively supporting, materially or financially, or benefitting from Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine, that is, the criterion referred to in Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, has not been satisfied.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the criterion laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP is unlawful. The applicant takes the view that there is no legal basis for the criterion relied on by the Council.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the criterion laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP is unlawful. The applicant submits in that regard that that criterion infringes the principle of proportionality.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an error in assessment, on the ground that the Council has not established that the applicant is a leading businessperson or that the banking sector provides a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation. Finally, the applicant submits that he has not been active in the Russian banking sector for almost one year.


(1)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134).

(2)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1).


Top