EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-272/22: Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Pumpyanskaya v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0272

62022TN0272

May 17, 2022
With Google you find a lot.
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

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/43

(Case T-272/22)

(2022/C 257/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya (Ekaterinburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 of 9 March 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 (2) (‘Contested Acts’), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and

order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts.

The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed.

The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations.

The evidence provided is insufficient to establish a qualified link between the applicant and the applicant’s husband, with the element of ‘association’ under the Contested Acts requiring a nexus going beyond a mere family relationship.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life, home and communications, as well as property.

In listing the applicant by way of the Contested Acts, the Council acted in breach of the principle of proportionality and based its decision upon law that does not conform to the requirement of foreseeability under Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The arbitrary measure imposed against the applicant amounts to unequal, discriminatory treatment of the applicant.

(1)

(2)

* * *

Language of the case: English

ECLI:EU:C:2022:140

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia