- 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-215/22: Action brought on 22 April 2022 — Synesis v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0215
62022TN0215
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
7.6.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 222/39
(Case T-215/22)
(2022/C 222/64)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Synesis TAA (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant;
—pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the argument that the contested measures are unlawful in so far as they concern the applicant, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and in particular infringed its examination obligations. In the applicant’s view, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.