# C_2012250EN.01001801.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/18 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Chyzh and Others v Council

(Case T-276/12)

2012/C 250/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Yury Aleksandrovich Chyzh (Minsk, Belarus); Triple TAA (Minsk, Belarus); NefteKhimTrading STAA (Minsk, Belarus); Askargoterminal ZAT (Minsk, Belarus); Bereza Silicate Products Plant AAT (Bereza District, Belarus); Variant TAA (Berezovsky District, Belarus); Triple-Dekor STAA (Minsk, Belarus); KvartsMelProm SZAT (Khotislav, Belarus); Altersolutions SZAT (Minsk, Belarus); Prostoremarket SZAT (Minsk, Belarus); AquaTriple STAA (Minsk, Belarus); Rakovsky brovar TAA (Minsk, Belarus); TriplePharm STAA (Logoysk, Belarus); and Triple-Veles TAA (Molodechno, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 87, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (JO L 87, p. 95), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested Council measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons to whom restrictive measures apply, or, in the alternative, that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment; | — | that the contested Council measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons to whom restrictive measures apply, or, in the alternative, that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment; |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested Council measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons to whom restrictive measures apply, or, in the alternative, that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment; | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested Council measures infringe rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicants with the possibility to effectively exercise their rights, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicants’ right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. | — | that the contested Council measures infringe rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicants with the possibility to effectively exercise their rights, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicants’ right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | that the contested Council measures infringe rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicants with the possibility to effectively exercise their rights, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicants’ right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed. | | |

---