EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-274/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Klymenko v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0274

62018TN0274

April 30, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
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

(Case T-274/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

uphold Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko’s action;

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.Failure to state the reasons for the contested measures.

2.Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the fundamental principles of EU law, in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

3.Absence of a legal basis, since Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union cannot provide a legal basis for the restrictive measures adopted against Mr Klymenko.

4.Factual errors in that Mr Klymenko has provided evidence proving the lack of a sufficient factual basis for bringing criminal proceedings.

5.Breach of the fundamental right to property, which is a fundamental principle of EU law enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia