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-240/24: Action brought on 7 May 2024 – MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0240

62024TN0240

May 7, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/3794

(Case T-240/24)

(C/2024/3794)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OAO Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod - upravljajusaja kompanija holdinga Belavtomaz (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/768 of 26 February 2024 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 (1), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/769 of 26 February 2024 amending 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 (2), insofar as they concern and affect the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 2(5) of Regulation No 765/2006 and Article 4(1)(b) of Decision 2012/642, as amended by the contested acts (hereafter, “Criterion 4(1)(b)”).

2.Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative an error of assessment in the application of Criterion 4(1)(b) and a failure to comply with the burden of proof.

3.Third plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

(1) OJ L 2024/768.

(2) OJ L 2024/769.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3794/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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