- 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-588/24: Action brought on 14 November 2024 – OT v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0588
62024TN0588
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/2025/402
27.1.2025
(Case T-588/24)
(C/2025/402)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and P. Blanchetier, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L, 13.9.2024), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 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 (OJ L, 13.9.2024), in so far as it concerns the applicant (Annex A1);
—as a consequence, order the Council to remove the applicant’s name from the annexes to Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 of 12 September 2024 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 of 12 September 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;
—order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in its assessment of the facts.
—The applicant submits, in the first place, that the evidence put forward by the Council is inconclusive and unconvincing.
—In the second place, the applicant submits that the allegations relating to the applicant’s material and financial support to the Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea or the destabilisation of Ukraine are unfounded.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.
—The applicant argues that the evidence put forward by the Council in order to justify the applicant being listed on the sanctions list is obsolete and irrelevant.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/402/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—