17.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/38

Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-286/17)

(2017/C 231/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant(s)/appellant(s) claims/claim that the Court should:

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 34) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 1) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

—

order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council lacked a proper legal basis for the contested acts.

—

The conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the contested decision.

—

The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU.

—

There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers.

—

The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the contested acts was essentially to try to curry favour with the current regime in Ukraine (so that Ukraine proceeds with closer ties with the EU), and not the purposes/rationales stated on the face of the contested acts.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons.

—

The ‘statement of reasons’ adopted in the contested acts for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and inadequately particularised.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. In re-designating the applicant, notwithstanding the clear disconnect between the ‘statement of reasons’ and the relevant designation criteria, the Council has made a manifest error.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed adequately to consult with the applicant prior to the re-designation, and the applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or produce information relating to his personal circumstances.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.