- 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 T-139/25: Action brought on 26 February 2025 – Qisda Optronics (Suzhou) v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0139
62025TN0139
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/2025/2102
14.4.2025
(Case T-139/25)
(C/2025/2102)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Qisda Optronics (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) (represented by: L. Catrain González and F. Pili, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/3187 of 16 December 2024 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) 2024/3192 of 16 December 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they included the applicant in Annex IV of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 and in Annex IV of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014; as well as Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/394 of 24 February 2025 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) 2025/395 of 24 February 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they maintained the name of the applicant in Annex IV of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 and in Annex IV of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014;
—Order the Council to pay the costs of the 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 that the applicant does not meet the criteria for being listed in Annex IV, and its inclusion therein is unjustified in light of the objectives pursued by Articles 2, 2a and 2b and Annex IV of Regulation No 833/2014.
2.Second plea in law, alleging the absence of a statement of reasons and the failure to provide access to the evidence file, which infringes Article 296 TFEU and entails a violation of the applicant’s rights of defence.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the listing of the applicant constitutes a disproportionate interference with the freedom to conduct business, contrary to Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2102/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—