- 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-333/25: Action brought on 26 May 2025 – Ezubov v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0333
62025TN0333
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/2025/3922
21.7.2025
(Case T-333/25)
(C/2025/3922)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Pavel Ezubov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa and V. Villante, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/528 of 14 March 2025 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; and
—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/527 of 14 March 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and
—order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter Of Fundamental Rights; breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment - failure to discharge the burden of proof – Plea of illegality pursuant to article 277 TFEU of the ‘association’ listing criterion – Abuse of process and breach of the ne bis in idem principle.
3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and the applicant’s fundamental rights – Breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business – Breach of Article 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU – Failure to conduct an individualized proportionality assessment on the applicant’s situation.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3922/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—