31.5.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/40

(Case T-195/21)

(2021/C 206/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the action of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko admissible;

in so far as concerns the applicant,

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

—order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action for annulment against Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2), in so far as those acts concern him, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons with particular regard to the reference in the acts to the justification of the measure and to the verifications carried out in relation to observance of the rights of the defence and effective judicial protection.

2.Second plea, alleging an error of assessment in the case and misuse of power, in that the applicant has provided evidence demonstrating the lack of a sufficient factual basis such as to ground any criminal proceedings as well as evidence of the violation of fundamental rights, from which the Council fails to draw any conclusions.

3.Third plea, alleging violation of fundamental rights, in particular of observance of the rights of the defence, of the right to effective judicial protection and of the right to equality of arms.

4.Fourth plea, alleging a lack of legal basis, in that Article 29 TEU cannot be the legal basis for the restrictive measure taken against the applicant.