Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2024/1867

(Case T-1105/23)

(C/2024/1867)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich (Nemchinovo, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, C. Zatschler, S. Bonifassi, J. Goffin, J. Bastien and M. Brésart, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally,

—declare unlawful the listing criterion laid down in Articles 1(1)(e) and 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in so far as it refers to ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them, or businesspersons 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’, and, in consequence:

—order the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 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) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022;

—order the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 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) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022;

—order the Council to pay EUR 1 000 000 on a provisional basis 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 six pleas in law.

1.First plea, raising a plea of illegality in respect of new criterion (g) as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1089.

2.Second plea, alleging a failure to observe the applicant’s fundamental rights.

3.Third plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

4.Fourth plea, alleging a failure to observe the obligation to state reasons and the right to judicial protection.

5.Fifth plea, alleging a failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

6.Sixth plea, alleging a failure to observe the right to be heard.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1867/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)