# C_2022244EN.01004101.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/41

---

Action brought on 3 May 2022 — Pšonka v Council

(Case T-243/22)

(2022/C 244/56)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Artem Viktorovyč Pšonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/376 of 3 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/375 of 3 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, to the extent to which they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/376 of 3 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/375 of 3 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, to the extent to which they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union 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 right to sound administration.






  — | The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not act with due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it primarily based its decision on information provided by the Ukrainian institutions and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in the Ukraine. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration.

—

The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not act with due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it primarily based its decision on information provided by the Ukrainian institutions and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in the Ukraine.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property.






  — | The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictions adopted against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property.

—

The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictions adopted against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.






  — | The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures against him, his right to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

—

The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures against him, his right to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property.

---