27.8.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/19

—

(Case C-416/18 P)

(2018/C 301/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2018 in Case T-190/16;

—itself deliver a final decision in the proceedings and annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as they concern the appellant, and order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

—in the alternative to the form of order set out in the paragraph above, refer the case back to the General Court for a decision subject to the legal findings in the judgment of the Court of Justice and reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

1.The General Court wrongly held that the Council had not infringed fundamental rights. The General Court erred in law in its appraisal of the infringement of both the right to property and the freedom to conduct business. In particular, it wrongly found the measures to be appropriate and proportionate. Further, the General Court made procedural errors and infringed procedural rights.

2.The General Court wrongly found that the Council had not abused its powers. First, the General Court failed to carry out any specific checks in respect of the appellant. Second, the General Court wrongly assumed that the absence of specific evidence was irrelevant.

3.The General Court wrongly held that the Council had not infringed the right to sound administration. First, the General Court erred in law in its discussion on the Council’s obligation of impartiality. Second, the General Court misconstrued the scope of the obligation to state reasons.

4.The General court wrongly held that the Council had committed no ‘manifest error of assessment’.

5.The General Court infringed the right to a fair trial by relying on purely political reasons.

*

Language of the case: German.