8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/49

(Case T-290/22)

(2022/C 303/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Igor Albertovich Kesaev (Usovo, Russia) (represented by: R. Moeyersons and A. De Jonge, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 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 to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

—order the Council to reimburse the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list is based on factually incorrect grounds.

—The actions of the applicant within [confidential] do not call for the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list. Not one of the reasons set out in Article 2 of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022, is applicable to the applicant.

—The applicant is not a shareholder of [confidential]. The applicant was only indirectly, via the company GlobalVoyenTreyding Ltd, a passive shareholder of [confidential]. The applicant transferred those shares to the management by agreements of 11 January 2022, and therefore prior to the military operation of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine.

—The applicant has no links with ‘the security forces’ of the Russian Federation via [confidential]. The applicant has no active or executive role within that foundation, which is a charity, nor is he aware of whether or not the trustees of that foundation are former officials of the Russian security services, which the Council does not demonstrate.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant was never heard, which is a violation of the right to a fair trial. Had the applicant been properly informed and given the opportunity to submit observations in due time, the procedure would have had a different outcome.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions list is, having regard to the first plea, contrary to Articles 6, 8, 16 and 17 of the Charter, in combination with Article 52 thereof.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty. The criteria for placing persons on the sanctions list are vague and unclear and therefore lead to arbitrary decisions.

Confidential information redacted.