# C_2022171EN.01004202.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 3 March 2022 — Belavia v Council

(Case T-116/22)

(2022/C 171/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belavia — Belarusian Airlines AAT (Minsk, 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 relying on the factually incorrect reasons provided in the Contested Measures to designate the applicant, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment. This is strengthened by the fact that the applicant in fact itself provided the Council with detailed information rebutting the reasons underlying its designation prior thereto, as it became aware of false news reports containing such information being published. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by relying on the factually incorrect reasons provided in the Contested Measures to designate the applicant, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment. This is strengthened by the fact that the applicant in fact itself provided the Council with detailed information rebutting the reasons underlying its designation prior thereto, as it became aware of false news reports containing such information being published.

| 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.

---