- 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-358/25: Action brought on 26 May 2025 – Abramovich v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0358
62025TN0358
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/2025/4059
28.7.2025
(Case T-358/25)
(C/2025/4059)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich (Nemchinovo, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, S. Bonifassi and J. Goffin, lawyers, and C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—find Article 1(1)(e) and Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2014/269 to be unlawful and, consequently, declare those provisions inapplicable to the applicant;
—annul:
—Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/528 of 14 March 2025, 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;
—Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/527 of 14 March 2024, 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 harm 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 in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.
2.Second plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of criterion (g).
3.Third plea in law, alleging violation of human dignity.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging errors of assessment.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of proportionality.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/145 and infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights arising from his fundamental status as a European citizen.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4059/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—