EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

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

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0255

62015TN0255

May 19, 2015
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/69

(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.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia