11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/37

(Case T-380/14)

2014/C 261/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they concern the applicant and, more specifically, order:

—to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014;

—to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014;

—partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they do not conform to the Joint Proposal;

—order the Council to bear the costs of this suit and award costs to the applicant.

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 lack of competence of the Council and infringement of the natural judge’s competences as:

—the adoption of the contested regulation violated the procedure laid down in Article 215(2) TFEU since the regulation expanded the scope of the restrictive measures compared to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission, which the regulation was based on;

—the listing of the applicant lead to pillorying an individual who had not benefited from a due process and who had not been condemned by a competent court of law.

2.Second plea in law, alleging obvious errors in the appreciation of the facts. The applicant submits that no investigation was initiated against him in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and/or their illegal transfer outside Ukraine before or at the moment of the adoption of the contested measures. Moreover, the applicant alleges that even if the alleged investigation did exist, it would not have any factual or legal basis and would be exclusively politically motivated. Finally, the applicant claims that the reasons given by the Council for listing the applicant do not meet the conditions set by the contested measures and are not supported by any evidence.

3.Third plea in law, alleging violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The applicant submits that:

—the Council failed to provide the applicant with the individual and specific factual and legal reasons in violation of Article 296 TFUE;

—the applicant was not given the right to make his views known to the Council;

—the contested measures identify the applicant as being responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds in the absence of any judgment and any proof thereof, which constitutes a violation of the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty;

—the applicant was not informed of any evidence adduced against him, thus making him unable to contest it before the Court, which constitutes a violation of his right to an effective legal remedy;

—the appellant is directly deprived of his property rights;

—the contested sanctions are disproportionate compared to the circumstances of the case and the available evidence, and

—the way in which applicant is portrayed in the contested measures seriously harms his reputation.