# C_2014292EN.01005101.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/51

---

Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-494/14)

2014/C 292/63

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Klymenko (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Shaw, QC, and I. Quirk, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision 2014/216 and Regulation 381/2014 with immediate effect in so far as they apply to Mr Klymenko, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2014/216 and Regulation 381/2014 with immediate effect in so far as they apply to Mr Klymenko, and

| — | order the Council to pay Mr Klymenko’s costs of this action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay Mr Klymenko’s costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection as the applicant was unaware of the investigation against him, on the basis of which he was included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the contested restrictive measures, and was provided with no details of it by either the Council or the Ukrainian authorities. The applicant further alleges that he was not provided with the grounds for listing nor therefore given an opportunity to submit observations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection as the applicant was unaware of the investigation against him, on the basis of which he was included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the contested restrictive measures, and was provided with no details of it by either the Council or the Ukrainian authorities. The applicant further alleges that he was not provided with the grounds for listing nor therefore given an opportunity to submit observations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of evidence as the facts show that the applicant fought corruption when he was in office in Ukraine and that he was not engaged in embezzlement of Ukrainian state funds. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of evidence as the facts show that the applicant fought corruption when he was in office in Ukraine and that he was not engaged in embezzlement of Ukrainian state funds.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, non-fulfilment of the criteria laid down in Article 1(1) of decision 2014/119 and misuse of powers as the grounds for listing the applicant are vague and non-specific. The applicant submits that the Council has therefore not shown that he falls under the criteria of Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/119, whereby his listing amounts to a misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, non-fulfilment of the criteria laid down in Article 1(1) of decision 2014/119 and misuse of powers as the grounds for listing the applicant are vague and non-specific. The applicant submits that the Council has therefore not shown that he falls under the criteria of Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/119, whereby his listing amounts to a misuse of powers.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to property and the principle of proportionality as the freeze of the applicant’s funds constitutes an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to property. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to property and the principle of proportionality as the freeze of the applicant’s funds constitutes an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to property.

---