- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-816/24 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2024 by Belaruskali AAT against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 September 2024 in Case T-528/22, Belaruskali v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0816
62024CN0816
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2025/391
(Case C-816/24 P)
(C/2025/391)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Belaruskali AAT (represented by: E. Anevlavi, dikigoros)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Latvia
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;
—annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (2), and subsequent maintaining Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 amending Decision 2012/642 (3) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (4), insofar as the appellant is concerned;
—order the Council to bear the costs incurred both in the proceedings before the General Court and the present appeal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law by failing to properly apply the principle of legal certainty with respect to the term ‘Lukashenko regime’ and committing an error of assessment in this regard.
Second, the General Court erred in assessing that the Council had sufficiently proven Belaruskali’s responsibility for the repression of civil society in Belarus.
(1)
OJ 2022 L 153, p. 77.
(2)
OJ 2022 L 153, p. 1.
(3)
OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41.
(4)
OJ 2023 L 61, p. 20.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/391/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—