- 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-297/24: Action brought on 6 June 2024 – Boguslayev v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0297
62024TN0297
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/2024/4734
5.8.2024
(Case T-297/24)
(C/2024/4734)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Boguslayev (Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine) (represented by: S. Bonifassi, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/432 of 25 February 2023 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/429 of 25 February 2023;
—annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing 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 extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/432 of 25 February 2023 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/429 of 25 February 2023;
—order the Council to pay the provisional sum of EUR 1 000 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;
—order the Council to pay the costs.
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 infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the obligation to state reasons.
2.Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment in the application of Article 3(1)(a) and (e) of Regulation (EU) 269/2014 to the applicant.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property and to respect for his private and family life, and the presumption of innocence.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4734/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—