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-735/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014 — Gazprom Neft v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0735

62014TN0735

October 24, 2014
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

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/35

(Case T-735/14)

(2014/C 448/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gazprom Neft OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: L. Van den Hende and S. Cogman, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Article 4 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014;

annul Article 3 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014; and

order the Council to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.

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 a breach of Article 296 TFEU.

The Applicant claims that contested CFSP Decision and the contested Regulation do not provide sufficient reasoning and therefore breach Article 296 TFEU.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions.

The Applicant claims that Article 215 TFEU is an inappropriate legal basis for the contested provisions of the contested Regulation since there are insufficient links between the Applicant and (i) the Russian Government and (ii) the apparent objective that the sanctions seek to achieve. These principles should also govern the use of Article 29 TEU as a legal basis for restrictive measures against third countries.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights.

The Applicant claims that the contested provisions are inconsistent with the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights. The contested provisions are a disproportionate interference with Applicant's freedom to conduct a business and the Applicant's right to property since they are not appropriate to achieve their objectives (and therefore are also not necessary) and, in any event, impose burdens that very significantly outweigh any possible benefits.

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