- 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-607/24: Action brought on 25 November 2024 – SBK Art v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0607
62024TN0607
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
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2025/407
27.1.2025
(Case T-607/24)
(C/2025/407)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: SBK Art OOO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky and P. Goeth, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare the inapplicability of Article 2(1) final paragraph of Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329, and of Article 3(1) final paragraph of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330; and
—annul, either in combination with the above or alternatively, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2456 amending Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2455 implementing Regulation (EU) 269/2014, in so far as those acts concern the applicant (Listing Entry No. 174), and
—order the Council to pay the 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 application of EU secondary law infringes the Treaties and the rule of law.
2.Second plea in law, alleging unlawful infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights.
3.Third plea in law, alleging disproportionality.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, and unlawful infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/407/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—