- 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-273/24: Action brought on 23 May 2024 – Ezubov v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0273
62024TN0273
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
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2024/4097
8.7.2024
(Case T-273/24)
(C/2024/4097)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Pavel Ezubov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa and V. Villante, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; (1)
—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) and
—order the Council to bear the costs of the present 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 infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 of the TFEU and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
2.Second plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the new listing criterion in Articles 1(1)(e) and 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, introduced by the June 2023 Acts - plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU.
3.Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment – failure to discharge the burden of proof – in Articles 1(1)(e) and 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) no 269/2014, both concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and the applicant’s fundamental rights; breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business; breach of Article 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
(1) OJ L, 2024/847.
(2) OJ L, 2024/849.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4097/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
* * *
—