# C_2022284EN.01005401.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/54

---

Action brought on 7 June 2022 — Khudaverdyan v Council

(Case T-335/22)

(2022/C 284/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tigran Khudaverdyan (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: F. Bélot, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 (1) of 15 March 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 (1) of 15 March 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 (2) of 15 March 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Regulation 269/2014 of 17 March 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 (2) of 15 March 2022, in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Regulation 269/2014 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 the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to give reasons. The applicant claims, first, that the Council does not cite individual, specific and concrete reasons capable of sufficiently indicating to him whether the restrictive measures taken against him are well founded. He takes the view that the contested acts rest on an unsound factual basis and on grounds that are unsubstantiated and plausible only in the abstract. The applicant then takes the view that the Council is requiring him to prove that there is no general case against him, implying a reversal of the burden of proof, which is contrary to the most fundamental rights of the defence. Finally, the applicant claims that the grounds alleged are insufficient and that there is a lack of credible and substantial evidence to support them and that that precludes adequate review by the courts of the legality of his inclusion and retention on the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures at issue. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to give reasons. The applicant claims, first, that the Council does not cite individual, specific and concrete reasons capable of sufficiently indicating to him whether the restrictive measures taken against him are well founded. He takes the view that the contested acts rest on an unsound factual basis and on grounds that are unsubstantiated and plausible only in the abstract. The applicant then takes the view that the Council is requiring him to prove that there is no general case against him, implying a reversal of the burden of proof, which is contrary to the most fundamental rights of the defence. Finally, the applicant claims that the grounds alleged are insufficient and that there is a lack of credible and substantial evidence to support them and that that precludes adequate review by the courts of the legality of his inclusion and retention on the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures at issue.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the applicant does not support the actions of the Government of the Russian Federation concerning interventions in Ukraine. The applicant also argues that the company Yandex is not a ‘key element in hiding information from Russians about the war in Ukraine’ or ‘a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the applicant does not support the actions of the Government of the Russian Federation concerning interventions in Ukraine. The applicant also argues that the company Yandex is not a ‘key element in hiding information from Russians about the war in Ukraine’ or ‘a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant takes the view that the grounds said to justify the restrictive measures taken against him are discriminatory and disproportionate in view of the objective pursued by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant takes the view that the grounds said to justify the restrictive measures taken against him are discriminatory and disproportionate in view of the objective pursued by the Council.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, namely the right to respect for property, the right to respect for private and family life, the freedom to conduct a business and the right to be presumed innocent. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights, namely the right to respect for property, the right to respect for private and family life, the freedom to conduct a business and the right to be presumed innocent.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 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 87 I, p. 44).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 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 87 I, p. 1).

---