# C_2022311EN.01001802.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/18

---

Action brought on 2 July 2022 — Mndoiants v Council

(Case T-390/22)

(2022/C 311/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Serguey Mndoiants (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: F. Bélot and P. Tkhor, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the list set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the list set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the list set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/269 of 17 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022 in so far as it includes the name of the applicant in the list set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/269 of 17 March 2014;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the information provided by the Council does not enable him to defend himself, in that, first, the information provided by the Council cannot constitute justification for the restrictive measures at issue given the insufficient nature of that information and, second, the Council has failed to set out individual, specific and concrete reasons such as to give the applicant sufficient information on the merits of the act. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the information provided by the Council does not enable him to defend himself, in that, first, the information provided by the Council cannot constitute justification for the restrictive measures at issue given the insufficient nature of that information and, second, the Council has failed to set out individual, specific and concrete reasons such as to give the applicant sufficient information on the merits of the act.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in that, first, the evidence relied on by the Council in order to include the applicant on the list is materially incorrect in its entirety and, second, the Council has failed to establish either that the applicant is a prominent business person that he is influential, or that he is active in economic sectors that provide a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in that, first, the evidence relied on by the Council in order to include the applicant on the list is materially incorrect in its entirety and, second, the Council has failed to establish either that the applicant is a prominent business person that he is influential, or that he is active in economic sectors that provide a substantial source of revenue to the government of the Russian Federation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant takes the view that the sanctions imposed on him are discriminatory with regard to him, and disproportionate to the objectives pursued by those measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant takes the view that the sanctions imposed on him are discriminatory with regard to him, and disproportionate to the objectives pursued by those measures.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental individual rights, including the right to property and the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications. By including the applicant on the list, the Council acted in disregard of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental individual rights, including the right to property and the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications. By including the applicant on the list, the Council acted in disregard of the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 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 110, p. 55).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 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 110, p. 3).

---