# C_2022257EN.01005201.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/52

---

Action brought on 24 May 2022 — Fridman v Council

(Case T-304/22)

(2022/C 257/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mikhail Fridman (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2022/337 (1) of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2022/337 (1) of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 (2) of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 (2) of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant claims, first, that none of the evidence put forward by the Council meets the requirements of the European case-law on the standard and quality of proof and, second, that none of the assertions in the Council’s statement of reasons is well-established and none therefore fits into criteria (a) to (d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, in the version then in force, to which explicit reference was made by the Council in its statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in assessment. The applicant claims, first, that none of the evidence put forward by the Council meets the requirements of the European case-law on the standard and quality of proof and, second, that none of the assertions in the Council’s statement of reasons is well-established and none therefore fits into criteria (a) to (d) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, in the version then in force, to which explicit reference was made by the Council in its statement of reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging illegality of that criterion on account of a twofold infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims, first, that the criterion relied on by the Council is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective pursued and, second, that it was possible to employ less-restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging illegality of that criterion on account of a twofold infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant claims, first, that the criterion relied on by the Council is manifestly inappropriate with respect to the objective pursued and, second, that it was possible to employ less-restrictive measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis, on the ground that no sufficient link has been established between the category of individuals targeted by that criterion and the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a legal basis, on the ground that no sufficient link has been established between the category of individuals targeted by that criterion and the Russian Federation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessment, on the ground that the Council does not show that the applicant is a prominent or leading businessman or that he is involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessment, on the ground that the Council does not show that the applicant is a prominent or leading businessman or that he is involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 58, p. 1).

---