- 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-233/23: Action brought on 4 May 2023 — Gutseriev v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0233
62023TN0233
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
26.6.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 223/39
(Case T-233/23)
(2023/C 223/52)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Mikail Safarbekovich Gutseriev (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, barristers and D. Anderson, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/421 of 24 February 2023 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 41) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/419 of 24 February 2023 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 61, p. 20), insofar as they apply to the applicant (together, the ‘2023 Contested Acts’);
—pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the applicant, the 2023 Contested Acts;
—order that the Council pays the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in the contested measures is satisfied.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the rights to private life, property and freedom to conduct business.
3.Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging illegality if the designation criterion in Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642 and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation 765/2006 is to be interpreted to capture any form of support or any form of benefit.