# C_2021490EN.01004502.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/45

---

Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Zaytsev v Council

(Case T-563/21)

(2021/C 490/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Zaytsev (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: A. Shmagin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons






  — | The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and lacks detail. Reasons such as ‘access to the Lukashenka family’ and ‘procurement of lucrative contracts for his businesses’ as well as the ground that the applicant was supported by Mr Viktar Lukashenka are too general and vague. The claim that Bremino-Grupp OOO, in which the applicant in fact has a stake, received improper State support for the development of the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ special economic zone or ‘a number of financial and tax advantages’ is too imprecise to understand how the treatment of that economic zone differs from that of the other free economic zones existing in Belarus. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons

—

The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and lacks detail. Reasons such as ‘access to the Lukashenka family’ and ‘procurement of lucrative contracts for his businesses’ as well as the ground that the applicant was supported by Mr Viktar Lukashenka are too general and vague. The claim that Bremino-Grupp OOO, in which the applicant in fact has a stake, received improper State support for the development of the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ special economic zone or ‘a number of financial and tax advantages’ is too imprecise to understand how the treatment of that economic zone differs from that of the other free economic zones existing in Belarus.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact and assessment






  — | The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis. The applicant has never been an assistant of Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Neither the applicant nor the undertakings controlled by him have received any support from Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Bremino-Grupp OOO has never received any special advantage as a result of the alleged relations between its shareholders and the family of the Belarusian President. The applicant is also not the owner of Sohra Group OOO; he is only a minority shareholder. Moreover, Sohra Group OOO has not been granted any special distribution rights for Gulf and African States. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of fact and assessment

—

The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis. The applicant has never been an assistant of Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Neither the applicant nor the undertakings controlled by him have received any support from Mr Viktar Lukashenka. Bremino-Grupp OOO has never received any special advantage as a result of the alleged relations between its shareholders and the family of the Belarusian President. The applicant is also not the owner of Sohra Group OOO; he is only a minority shareholder. Moreover, Sohra Group OOO has not been granted any special distribution rights for Gulf and African States.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection






  — | The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed listing and afforded him no opportunity to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against him was published. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection

—

The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed listing and afforded him no opportunity to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against him was published.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures are disproportionate






  — | The contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, his right to pursue an economic activity and his right to respect for his reputation under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures are disproportionate

—

The contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, his right to pursue an economic activity and his right to respect for his reputation under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.

---