- 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-494/22: Action brought on 12 August 2022 — NSD v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0494
62022TN0494
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
26.9.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 368/30
(Case T-494/22)
(2022/C 368/51)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: NKO AO National Settlement Depository (NSD) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Tuominen, M. Krestiyanova, J.-P. Fierens, C. Vangoidsenhoven and C. Gieskes, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant;
—order the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts breach the obligation to state adequate reasons.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. The applicant claims that the facts relied on by the Council are unsubstantiated, factually incorrect, and unfounded.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the effects resulting from the contested acts constitute a disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental rights protected, in particular, by Articles 16 and 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that since the Council failed to meet the required standard of proof, individual sanctions against the applicant are unlawful.
(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (JO 2022 L 153, p. 15).
(2) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (JO 2022 L 153, p. 92).