6.7.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/28

(Case T-258/20)

(2020/C 222/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—uphold the action brought by Mr Oleksandr Viktorovytch Klymenko;

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

—order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea, alleging failure to state reasons for the contested measures. The applicant claims that the Council failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for the contested measures with regard to the justification of those measures, respect for the rights of defence, effective judicial protection and the checks carried out on that basis.

2.Second plea, alleging error of assessment of the facts of the case and misuse of power. The applicant claims that, taking into account the evidence submitted to it, the Council could only have found that there was not a sufficient legal basis for bringing criminal proceedings. The applicant also noted a number of infringements of his fundamental rights, from which the Council failed to draw any conclusions.

3.Third plea, alleging infringement of fundamental rights, in so far as the contested measures were not adopted with due respect for the rights of defence, the right to effective judicial protection, or the right to equality of arms.

4.Fourth plea, alleging absence of legal basis, in that Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union cannot provide an admissible legal basis for the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant.

5.Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to respect for property.