14.11.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/14

—

(Case C-620/22 P)

(2022/C 432/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: RT France (represented by: E. Piwnica, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Estonia, Republic of France, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Poland, European Commission, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 July 2022 in Case T-125/22 RT France v Council;

—order the Council of the European Union to bear all the costs;

with all the legal consequences which that entails.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court infringed the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in holding that — in order to conclude that there was no infringement of RT France’s right to be heard — the EU authorities were not required to hear the appellant prior to the initial inclusion of its name on the lists in question on account of the highly exceptional context in which the measures at issue were adopted and of the objective pursued by the Council.

The appellant claims that the General Court failed to comply with the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and distorted the evidence before it by holding that the appellant had not been able to show that the outcome of the procedure might have been different if it had been heard prior to the adoption of the measures at issue or if the grounds for the application of those measures had been disclosed to it beforehand.

Furthermore, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and submits that the General Court distorted the evidence before it in finding that, in order to acknowledge the restriction of the appellant’s freedom of expression, the restrictive measure at issue is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objectives it pursued.

According to the appellant, the General Court also infringed the provisions of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in relying on the provisional nature of the restrictions imposed on the appellant and the lack of evidence of its financial viability in order to hold that the restrictive measure at issue was not disproportionate.

Finally, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and submits that the General Court distorted the evidence before it in finding that the applicant had not been subject to any discrimination.

—