11.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/19

(Case T-470/21)

(2021/C 412/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the action of Mr. Oleksandr Viktorovytch Klymenko admissible;

—declare that, by adopting the restrictive measures directed against Mr. Klymenko, whether or not they have been annulled, concerning:

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/33 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016;

—Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015;

—the Council of the European Union has incurred the European Union’s non-contractual liability;

—declare that, consequently, the European Union is required to compensate the applicant for the resulting damage;

—order the Council of the European Union to compensate the resulting damage to good character and reputation, amounting to EUR 50 000, plus statutory interest and any other sum that may be justified;

—order the Council of the European Union to award the applicant the sum of EUR 500 for each month during which his name was entered on the lists at issue as compensation for the non-material damage resulting from the difficulties caused to his daily life and the damage to his health, to which should be added statutory interest, and any other sum that may be justified;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of reasons, constituting infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

2.Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment, resulting from the infringement by the Council of its obligation to establish that the restrictive measures adopted are well founded.