Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/4095

8.7.2024

(Case T-271/24)

(C/2024/4095)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Rashevsky (Moscow, 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:

—declare the inapplicability, pursuant to Articles 263, 275(2) and 277 TFEU, of Article 2(1)(a) and (f) of Council Decision No 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, as well as of Article 3(1)(a) and (f) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; and in eventu of Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision No 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023, as well as and in eventu of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1089 of 5 June 2023;

—annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024, amending Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1), in so far as it concerns the applicant;

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 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), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

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

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 the illegality of the Contested Listing Criteria as infringing the EU Treaties and the principle of legal certainty as well as the rule of law relating to their application in respect of the applicant.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has acted unlawfully when prolonging the contested decision, in that the Council has committed an error of assessment in respect of the applicant.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the continued listing of the applicant is disproportionate and unlawfully infringes certain rights of the applicant under the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(1) OJ L, 2024/847.

(2) OJ L, 2024/849.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4095/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—