Action brought on 23 May 2024 – Timchenko v Council
(Case T-285/24)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Gennady Nikolayevich Timchenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, J. Goffin, S. Bonifassi and E. Fedorova, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022;
annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it extends the application of the measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022;
provisionally order the Council to pay the amount of EUR 1 000 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;
order the Council to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
First plea, alleging unlawfulness of the first and third parts of the designation criterion laid down in Article 1(1)(e) and Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.
Second plea, alleging manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds relied on by the Council and, in particular, as regards the designation criteria applied to the applicant and the nature of the measures adopted.
Third plea, alleging failure by the Council to comply with the obligation to state reasons, in so far as it failed to state the reasons on which the application of the designation criteria to the applicant or the choice of the restrictive measures adopted were based.
Fourth plea, alleging breach of the right to be heard.
Fifth plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality in interpreting the designation criteria applied to the applicant and in applying the restrictive measures against him.
Sixth plea, alleging breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights deriving from his fundamental status as a European citizen. The applicant submits that the interference with his right to move freely within the territory of the European Union as guaranteed by the Treaties, under the CFSP, has no legal basis and is disproportionate and unnecessary.
Seventh plea, alleging breach of the applicant’s other fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular his right to property and his right to respect for private and family life.
____________