18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/17

(Case T-275/12)

2012/C 250/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Football Club ‘Dynamo-Minsk’ ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor and B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012, implementing Article 8a(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37), to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

—Annul Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and

—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 that the contested measures are vitiated by errors of law and manifest errors of assessment because the Council failed to take into account the specific nature of sport and/or the fundamental right of cultural diversity when it imposed the restrictive measures upon the applicant which is a European professional football club with an important sporting and cultural role.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicant on the lists of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the rights of defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, including the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the right to property in that they amount to an unjustified interference of the applicant’s ability to function as a European professional football club and to fulfil its social, educational and cultural functions.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures infringe the principle of proportionality, in particular as regards the applicant’s right to property and its right of cultural diversity, in particular as they do not provide for any safeguards to ensure that the applicant can continue to exercise its sporting and cultural functions as a European professional football club.