# C_2022389EN.01002001.xml

| 10.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/20

---

Action brought on 29 August 2022 — QU v Council

(Case T-522/22)

(2022/C 389/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QU (represented by: R. Martens and V. Ostrovskis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, firstly, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) (‘Amended Decision’) to the extent it concerns the applicant, and, secondly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 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 (2) (‘Amended Regulation’), to the extent it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, firstly, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/883 of 3 June 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) (‘Amended Decision’) to the extent it concerns the applicant, and, secondly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/878 of 3 June 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 (2) (‘Amended Regulation’), to the extent it concerns the applicant;

| — | Order the Council to pay all costs of the present proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay all costs of the present proceeding.

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 breaches Article 2 of the Amended Decision and Article 3 of the Amended Regulation on the grounds that the Council erred in law in incorrectly applying Criterion (g) of Article 2(1) of the Amended Decision and Article 3(1) of the Amended Regulation to the applicant, without thoroughly examining the facts and providing sufficient reasons to adopt restrictive measures against a person. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law alleging breaches Article 2 of the Amended Decision and Article 3 of the Amended Regulation on the grounds that the Council erred in law in incorrectly applying Criterion (g) of Article 2(1) of the Amended Decision and Article 3(1) of the Amended Regulation to the applicant, without thoroughly examining the facts and providing sufficient reasons to adopt restrictive measures against a person.

| 2. | Second plea in law alleging breaches Article 296 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), Article 41 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘The Charter’) and Article 2 and 4 of the Amended Decision on the grounds that the Council has not provided sufficiently specific and concrete reasons to justify the decision to take restrictive measures against the applicant, according to Article 4 of the Decision and Article 3 of the Regulation; it has committed manifest errors in conducting its analysis and failing to establish why the applicant would fall under one of the criteria stipulated in the Amended Decision, without thoroughly examining the facts and providing sufficient reasons to adopt restrictive measures against a person. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law alleging breaches Article 296 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), Article 41 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘The Charter’) and Article 2 and 4 of the Amended Decision on the grounds that the Council has not provided sufficiently specific and concrete reasons to justify the decision to take restrictive measures against the applicant, according to Article 4 of the Decision and Article 3 of the Regulation; it has committed manifest errors in conducting its analysis and failing to establish why the applicant would fall under one of the criteria stipulated in the Amended Decision, without thoroughly examining the facts and providing sufficient reasons to adopt restrictive measures against a person.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breaches of Article 41 and 48 of the Charter on the grounds that the Council did not provide the Evidence File to the Applicant with sufficient time to defend its rights; that the Council imposed a 14-day limit to present its observations and that it only presented the Evidence File one day before the deadline; that the applicant did not have any time to examine the Evidence File and present its observations, when the Council should have provided sufficient time to the applicant to examine the Evidence File and present its observations and ensured that all rights of defence were adhered to. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breaches of Article 41 and 48 of the Charter on the grounds that the Council did not provide the Evidence File to the Applicant with sufficient time to defend its rights; that the Council imposed a 14-day limit to present its observations and that it only presented the Evidence File one day before the deadline; that the applicant did not have any time to examine the Evidence File and present its observations, when the Council should have provided sufficient time to the applicant to examine the Evidence File and present its observations and ensured that all rights of defence were adhered to.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law alleging, breaches of Article 296 TFEU, Article 16 and 45 of the Charter on the grounds that the Council took disproportionate restrictive measures against the applicant based on non-corroborated factual allegations which can in any case no longer be justified. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law alleging, breaches of Article 296 TFEU, Article 16 and 45 of the Charter on the grounds that the Council took disproportionate restrictive measures against the applicant based on non-corroborated factual allegations which can in any case no longer be justified.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 153, p. 92.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 153, p. 15.

---