# C_2022171EN.01004201.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/42

---

Action brought on 2 March 2022 — Belshyna v Council

(Case T-115/22)

(2022/C 171/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belshyna AAT (Bobruisk, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/2125 of 2 December 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2124 of 2 December 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2) (the Contested Measures); and

| — | order that the Council pays the applicant's costs for this action. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council pays the applicant's costs for this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures, the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Namely, the applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for his designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by including the applicant in the annexes to the Contested Measures, the Council made a manifest error of assessment. Namely, the applicant claims that the Contested Measures provide unsubstantiated, factually incorrect and unfounded reasons for his designation. Further, the deficient reasons provided do not demonstrate a sufficiently substantive link to the scope of the measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council applied an unlawful type of measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures do not meet the standard of proof required for adopting individual sanctions. By attempting to use individual measures in order to achieve the objective of restricting business activities and profits of a foreign state-owned enterprise, the Council applied an unlawful type of measure.

---

(1)  OJ L 430 I, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 430 I, p. 1.

---