- 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-515/15: Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0515
62015TN0515
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
9.11.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 371/33
(Case T-515/15)
(2015/C 371/34)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Stumpf and A. Haak, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), insofar as the contested decision applies to the applicant, and
—order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, namely the respect of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to establish evidence that the applicant is involved in the destabilisation of Ukraine or has any influence regarding the successful implementation of the Minsk Agreements.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measure were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that in consequence of the annulment of Council Decision 2015/971/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 lacks a sufficient legal basis which means that the listing of the applicant in Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 by virtue of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014 will no longer have any effect.