# C_2021044EN.01005001.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/50

---

Action brought on 3 December 2020 — OL v Council

(Case T-714/20)

(2021/C 44/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: OL (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, J. Iriarte Ángel and E. Delage González, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul 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, in its present wording, in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul 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, in its present wording, in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant.

| — | annul 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, in its present wording, in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul 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, in its present wording, in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested restrictions are based at the time those restrictions were extended, in so far as those restrictions were extended in respect of the applicant without any genuine factual or evidential basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested restrictions are based at the time those restrictions were extended, in so far as those restrictions were extended in respect of the applicant without any genuine factual or evidential basis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the contested measures lack proper reasoning in respect of the applicant, which prevents the applicant from putting forward a proper defence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the contested measures lack proper reasoning in respect of the applicant, which prevents the applicant from putting forward a proper defence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to freedom of expression, in so far as the alleged declarations, calls to action and demonstrations attributed to the applicant are covered by that right. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to freedom of expression, in so far as the alleged declarations, calls to action and demonstrations attributed to the applicant are covered by that right.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the reasoning for the contested measures, the lack of any genuine factual basis for the reasons given by the Council and infringement of the rights to freedom of expression, defence and property, in so far as the requirement to provide genuine evidence and the requirement to state reasons when extending the contested measures were not met, which affects the other rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the reasoning for the contested measures, the lack of any genuine factual basis for the reasons given by the Council and infringement of the rights to freedom of expression, defence and property, in so far as the requirement to provide genuine evidence and the requirement to state reasons when extending the contested measures were not met, which affects the other rights.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, in so far as that right was disproportionately restricted. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, in so far as that right was disproportionately restricted.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the comparative position of the applicant was adversely affected without there being any justification. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the comparative position of the applicant was adversely affected without there being any justification.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in so far as there is objective, precise and consistent evidence to show that in imposing and extending the sanctions different objectives were intended to those stated by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in so far as there is objective, precise and consistent evidence to show that in imposing and extending the sanctions different objectives were intended to those stated by the Council.

---