EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-295/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Klymenko v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0295

62019TN0295

May 3, 2019
With Google you find a lot.
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

24.6.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/80

(Case T-295/19)

(2019/C 213/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the action brought by Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko admissible;

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that insufficient reasons are given for the contested measures.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the fundamental principles of EU law and set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, since Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union cannot provide a legal basis for the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, in that the applicant has provided evidence proving the lack of a sufficient factual basis for bringing criminal proceedings.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for property, a fundamental principle of EU law enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia