# C_2020222EN.01003301.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/33

---

Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Pšonka v Council

(Case T-269/20)

(2020/C 222/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovyč Pšonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as that decision and that regulation apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as that decision and that regulation apply to the applicant;

| — | declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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






  — | The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not, in adopting the contested decision, act with due care, since before adopting the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence the applicant submitted, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigation in the Ukraine. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

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

—

The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not, in adopting the contested decision, act with due care, since before adopting the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence the applicant submitted, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigation in the Ukraine.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property






  — | The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property

—

The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms






  — | The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

—

The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10.

(2)  OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1.

---