# C_2022472EN.01004401.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/44

---

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — SE and SF v Council

(Case T-644/22)

(2022/C 472/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: SE, SF (represented by: S. Bonifassi, E. Fedorova, T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 (1) in so far as it amends Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 269/2014 (2) and creates a reporting obligation at the expense of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 (1) in so far as it amends Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 269/2014 (2) and creates a reporting obligation at the expense of the applicants;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council exceeded its competence concerning restrictive measures. According to the applicants, the reporting obligation is not a necessary measure to give effect to Decision 2014/145/CFSP (3) and that provision, therefore, encroaches on the competences of Member States to implement the restrictive measures. Furthermore, the Council lacked the competence to create and define, by itself, an infringement to a reporting obligation that does not fall within the scope of a restrictive measure, and to harmonise the penalties for that infringement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council exceeded its competence concerning restrictive measures. According to the applicants, the reporting obligation is not a necessary measure to give effect to Decision 2014/145/CFSP (3) and that provision, therefore, encroaches on the competences of Member States to implement the restrictive measures. Furthermore, the Council lacked the competence to create and define, by itself, an infringement to a reporting obligation that does not fall within the scope of a restrictive measure, and to harmonise the penalties for that infringement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the reporting obligation imposed within a strict time limit, coupled with the obligation on Member States to penalise the failure to comply with that obligation by a sanction regime consisting, in particular, of confiscations, was adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the reporting obligation imposed within a strict time limit, coupled with the obligation on Member States to penalise the failure to comply with that obligation by a sanction regime consisting, in particular, of confiscations, was adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the reporting obligation was not necessary and that the consequences of a failure to comply with the reporting obligation are, therefore, disproportionate with regard to the objective pursued by the regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the reporting obligation was not necessary and that the consequences of a failure to comply with the reporting obligation are, therefore, disproportionate with regard to the objective pursued by the regulation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, on the ground that Article 1(4) of the contested regulation is neither clear nor precise and that its application is not foreseeable. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, on the ground that Article 1(4) of the contested regulation is neither clear nor precise and that its application is not foreseeable.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 of 21 July 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 194, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

(3)  Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16).

---