- 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-141/21: Action brought on 5 March 2021 — Shakutin v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0141
62021TN0141
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
10.5.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 182/61
(Case T-141/21)
(2021/C 182/82)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Aleksandr Vasilevich Shakutin (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, and Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus;
—order the Council to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons regarding the scope of grounds used by the Council to designate the Applicant, specifically with regard to any alleged involvement in repression of civil society and democratic opposition under Article 4(a) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to provide actual reasons and made a series of manifest errors of assessment in finding that the applicant is benefitting from and supporting the Lukashenka regime.