- 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-75/23: Action brought on 15 February 2023 — RT France v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0075
62023TN0075
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
11.4.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 127/50
(Case T-75/23)
(2023/C 127/61)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: RT France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Piwnica, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Forms of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2477 of 16 December 2022, amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership;
—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/2476 of 16 December 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the association ‘TV-Novosti’ and the companies in its ownership;
—order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs;
—with all the legal consequences that entails.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Council disregarded its obligation to state reasons.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
4.Fourth plea, alleging that the Council erred in its assessment of the facts, thereby vitiating the contested measures.