# C_2021278EN.01005401.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/54

---

Action brought on 13 May 2021 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-262/21)

(2021/C 278/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov on Don, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 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) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (2) (‘the Ninth Amending Instruments’ or ‘2021 Sanctions’), insofar as they concern the applicant.

The applicant also seeks his costs.

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 that the Council did not and could not verify that the decision(s) of the Ukrainian authorities on which it relied when listing the applicant were adopted in accordance with his fundamental EU rights of defence and to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council did not and could not verify that the decision(s) of the Ukrainian authorities on which it relied when listing the applicant were adopted in accordance with his fundamental EU rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted the material supplied by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office without any proper examination and/or without taking account of the inaccuracies identified by the applicant. The Council should have undertaken additional checks and requested further evidence from the Ukrainian authorities in light of the observations the applicant submitted and the exculpatory evidence he produced, but the Council’s limited enquiries fell short of what was required. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2021 Sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted the material supplied by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office without any proper examination and/or without taking account of the inaccuracies identified by the applicant. The Council should have undertaken additional checks and requested further evidence from the Ukrainian authorities in light of the observations the applicant submitted and the exculpatory evidence he produced, but the Council’s limited enquiries fell short of what was required. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2021 Sanctions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for seven years and have been imposed on the basis of a pre-trial investigation which is in reality deceased or at the very least in total stagnation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for seven years and have been imposed on the basis of a pre-trial investigation which is in reality deceased or at the very least in total stagnation.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 77, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2021, L 77, p. 2.

---