# C_2021490EN.01004601.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/46

---

Action brought on 6 September 2021 — Bremino-Grupp v Council

(Case T-564/21)

(2021/C 490/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bremino-Grupp OOO (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 insufficiently precise. First, it is not clear from the statement of reasons what State support the applicant supposedly received for the development of the Bremino-Orsha special economic zone. The statement of reasons relating to the grant of ‘a number of financial and tax advantages and other benefits’ in favour of the applicant is also unclear since it is not possible to understand which advantages are meant. The claim that the shareholders of Bremino-Grupp OOO are ‘the owners of Bremino-Orsha’ is simply false because it is legally impossible to be the owner of an economic zone. Furthermore, the allegation that all three of the applicant’s shareholders belong to the ‘inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen’ is too general and cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the imposition of sanctions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

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 insufficiently precise. First, it is not clear from the statement of reasons what State support the applicant supposedly received for the development of the Bremino-Orsha special economic zone. The statement of reasons relating to the grant of ‘a number of financial and tax advantages and other benefits’ in favour of the applicant is also unclear since it is not possible to understand which advantages are meant. The claim that the shareholders of Bremino-Grupp OOO are ‘the owners of Bremino-Orsha’ is simply false because it is legally impossible to be the owner of an economic zone. Furthermore, the allegation that all three of the applicant’s shareholders belong to the ‘inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen’ is too general and cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the imposition of sanctions.

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






  — | The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis and the assessment made was therefore wrong. The fact that the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ economic zone was established by presidential decree does not constitute an advantage for the applicant, since this procedure is provided for in Belarusian legislation when establishing economic zones. The tax advantages associated with the special economic zone are available to any investor. It is unclear how the defendant defines the specific inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen and on what basis it includes the applicant’s shareholders in it. In addition, it is not clear from this reasoning how the applicant is concerned since it has not received any advantages in that regard. Nor has the applicant received any support from the President’s son, Mr Viktar Lukashenka. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment

—

The defendant clearly proceeded on an incorrect factual basis and the assessment made was therefore wrong. The fact that the ‘Bremino-Orsha’ economic zone was established by presidential decree does not constitute an advantage for the applicant, since this procedure is provided for in Belarusian legislation when establishing economic zones. The tax advantages associated with the special economic zone are available to any investor. It is unclear how the defendant defines the specific inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen and on what basis it includes the applicant’s shareholders in it. In addition, it is not clear from this reasoning how the applicant is concerned since it has not received any advantages in that regard. Nor has the applicant received any support from the President’s son, Mr Viktar Lukashenka.

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






  — | The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed inclusion in the lists at issue and afforded it no opportunity to defend itself and, if necessary, to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against it was published. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

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

—

The defendant failed to inform the applicant of the proposed inclusion in the lists at issue and afforded it no opportunity to defend itself and, if necessary, to adduce evidence in order to rebut the allegations before the decision to impose restrictive measures against it 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 its right to property, its right to pursue an economic activity and its right to respect for its 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 its right to property, its right to pursue an economic activity and its right to respect for its reputation under Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.

---