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 62018TN0065

    Case T-65/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Venezuela v Council

    IO C 134, 16.4.2018, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.4.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 134/24

    Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Venezuela v Council

    (Case T-65/18)

    (2018/C 134/34)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, insofar as its provisions concern the Applicant; and

    —

    order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the restrictive measures without previously informing the Applicant of its intention, and without previously hearing the position of the Applicant on the facts allegedly justifying the restrictive measures, the Council infringed the Applicant’s right to be heard.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its obligation to state the reasons and to provide sufficient evidence for the adoption of the restrictive measures.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment as concerns the facts on which the restrictive measures are based.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures constitute unlawful countermeasures under customary international law.
    Top