# C_2015279EN.01003601.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/36

---

Action brought on 5 May 2015 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-221/15)

(2015/C 279/44)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as those instruments concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as those instruments concern the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the right to good administration






  — | The applicant submits in this connection that there was a breach of the right to good administration guaranteed by Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), since the defendant did not proceed, in his view, with the proper care requiring it rigorously and impartially to examine all the relevant facts of the applicant’s case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the right to good administration

—

The applicant submits in this connection that there was a breach of the right to good administration guaranteed by Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), since the defendant did not proceed, in his view, with the proper care requiring it rigorously and impartially to examine all the relevant facts of the applicant’s case.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to property






  — | The applicant submits on this point that there was a breach of the right to property guaranteed him by Article 17(1) of the Charter and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, consisting in the fact that, as a result of the breach of the right to good administration, the contested acts limiting the applicant’s right to property were adopted with no legal grounds and contrary to the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to property

—

The applicant submits on this point that there was a breach of the right to property guaranteed him by Article 17(1) of the Charter and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, consisting in the fact that, as a result of the breach of the right to good administration, the contested acts limiting the applicant’s right to property were adopted with no legal grounds and contrary to the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter.

---