9.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/22

—

annul Article 1(3) of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (1), inserting Article 4(a) into Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP;

—

annul Article 1(3) of Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (2), inserting Article 3(a) into Council Regulation No 833/2014;

—

annul Article 1(1) and the Annex of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, to the extent they insert Article 1(2)(b)-(d), Article 1(3) and Annex III into Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, in so far as these provisions concern the applicant;

—

annul Article 1(5), Article 1(9) and Annex III of Council Regulation No 960/2014, to the extent they insert Article 5(2)(b)-(d), Article 5(3) and Annex VI into Council Regulation No 833/2014, in so far as these provisions concern the applicant;

—

annul Article 1(4) of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, replacing Article 7(1)(a) of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, in so far as this provision concerns the applicant;

—

annul Article 1(5a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014, replacing Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, in so far as this provision concerns the applicant; and

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) due to a lack of reasoning since, inter alia, neither Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP nor Council Regulation No 960/2014 even attempt to explain why the applicant's non-conventional oil projects are the subject of targeted restrictive measures.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 215 TFEU is an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 and that Article 29 TEU is an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provisions violate the EU-Russia Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation (3).

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights. The contested provisions constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant's freedom to conduct a business and right to property. They are not appropriate to achieve their objectives (and therefore are also not necessary) and, in any event, impose burdens that very significantly outweigh any possible benefits.