Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62015TN0255

    Case T-255/15: Action brought on 19 May 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council

    IO C 294, 7.9.2015, p. 69–69 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    19/05/2015
    Date lodged:
    19/05/2015
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Béarla
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Link

    7.9.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 294/69

    Action brought on 19 May 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council

    (Case T-255/15)

    (2015/C 294/84)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Stumpf and A. Haak, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), insofar those measures apply to the applicant;

    —

    order that the Council should pay the applicant’s costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the entire reasoning of the defendant fails to meet the requirements for restrictive measures.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.
    Top