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 62020TN0269

    Case T-269/20: Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Pšonka v Council

    IO C 222, 6.7.2020, p. 33–34 (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:
    05/05/2020
    Date lodged:
    05/05/2020
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Seicis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    6.7.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 222/33

    Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Pšonka v Council

    (Case T-269/20)

    (2020/C 222/36)

    Language of the case: Czech

    Parties

    Applicant: Viktor Pavlovyč Pšonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as that decision and that regulation apply to the applicant;

    —

    declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

    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 infringement of the right to good administration

    —

    The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not, in adopting the contested decision, act with due care, since before adopting the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence the applicant submitted, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigation in the Ukraine.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property

    —

    The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

    —

    The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property.

    (1)  OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10.

    (2)  OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1.

    Top