# C_2022011EN.01002702.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/27

---

Action brought on 4 November 2021 — Lyubetskaya v Council

(Case T-556/21)

(2022/C 11/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sviatlana Lyubetskaya (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul 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, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul 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, in so far as it concerns 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the 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 infringement of the principle of personal responsibility. The applicant submits that the aim and content of the contested measures, interpreted in the light of their wording, context and purposes, are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the prosecuting authority has failed to fulfil its duty to specify in what way the facts are attributable to the person concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of personal responsibility. The applicant submits that the aim and content of the contested measures, interpreted in the light of their wording, context and purposes, are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the prosecuting authority has failed to fulfil its duty to specify in what way the facts are attributable to the person concerned.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, based on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested measures lack any factual justification and merely draw conclusions that are founded solely on her status as a member of parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, based on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested measures lack any factual justification and merely draw conclusions that are founded solely on her status as a member of parliament.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the aim and content of the contested measures, interpreted in the light of their wording, context and purposes, are contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular in the light of her status as a member of parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the aim and content of the contested measures, interpreted in the light of their wording, context and purposes, are contrary to the principle of proportionality, in particular in the light of her status as a member of parliament.

---