Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2024/1102

5.2.2024

(Case T-1098/23)

(C/2024/1102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eduard Yurevich Khudaynatov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, D. Rovetta and M. Moretto, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 in so far as it makes Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 which included the applicant’s name in the Annex to Decision 2014/145, applicable until 15 March 2024;

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014;

—in the alternative, declare unlawful the listing criterion laid down in Article 1(1)(e) and Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2014/269 as amended, respectively, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1089 of 5 June 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in so far as it covers leading business persons operating in Russia or business persons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the reasons relied on by the Council, and in particular as regards the designation criteria applied to the applicant and the nature of the measures adopted.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the principle of proportionality as regards, inter alia, the application of the amended criterion relating to leading business persons, and infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights deriving from his fundamental status as a European citizen.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1102/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)