- 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-292/23: Action brought on 25 May 2023 — UC Rusal v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0292
62023TN0292
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
17.7.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/73
(Case T-292/23)
(2023/C 252/87)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: United Company Rusal MKPAO (UC Rusal) (Kaliningrad, Russia) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—partially annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, (1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 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) and (2) any subsequent Council Decision (CFSP) and Council Implementing Regulation amending or annulling these acts, in so far as they identify the Applicant as being owned by Mr Deripaska;
—order the Council to pay the costs.
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 a manifest error of assessment for including the applicant’s name in the Statement of Reasons of a person subject to restrictive measures.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing as the applicant was not provided with the possibility to effectively exercise its rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the right of defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicant’s right to an effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate and infringe the applicant’s rights under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 134).
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 75I, p. 1).