—Transpor t of gas turbines to Crimea
The alleg ation made against the applicant is that he was responsible for the onw ard transpor t of gas turbines to 
Crimea. The published press articles are not clear and are based on anonymou s sources. It is the task of the 
compet ent EU author ity to establish that the reasons relied on are sound; it is not the task of the under taking 
concer ned to adduce evidence to the contrar y, namely that those reasons are not sound.
—Infringement of the principles of inter national humanitar ian law
Russia is required under inter national law to restore and maintain public order in Crimea, which at the present time 
also includes ensur ing a safe and constant energy supply . The humanitar ian need for such an energy supply is not 
take n into account in the statement of reasons relating to Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP), and nor are the rules of 
inter national humanitar ian law.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringem ent of the obliga tion to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 
TFEU
Decision 2017/1418 infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The 
reasons stated in No 160 in the annex to the decision are, overall, vague and insuff iciently detailed. They do not indicate 
the specific reasons as to why the Council, in the exercise of its discretion, decided to apply restr ictive measures to the 
applicant and are thus not at all adequate to satisfy the requirements of the oblig ation to state reasons under the second 
paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defenc e and the right to effective legal prot ection
By failing to comp ly with the obliga tion to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, the Council 
infringed the applicant’s right of defe nce and right to effective legal prot ection, since it is not possible for the applicant to 
formulat e the best possible defe nce in the absence of knowledge as to the main reasons why he was added to the list at 
issue. 
(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concer ning restr ictive measures in 
respect of actions under mining or threatening the territori al integrity , sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 203 I, 
p. 5).
(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 692/2014 concer ning restr ictive 
measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 46).
Action brought on 17 October 2017 — WO Technopromexpor t v Council
(Case T-722/17)
(2017/C 424/82)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: OOO WO Technopromexp ort (Mosco w, Russia) (represented by: N. Mey er, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Cour t should:
—annul the cont ested Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 (1) of 4 August 2017;
—in the alter native, and in any event, annul the cont ested Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 in so far as, by that 
decision, the applicant was included in No 39 in the list of persons and entities under Article 1 of the decision; and
—join the proceedings in this case with the parallel proceedings concer ning Mr Topor -Gilka pursuant to Article 68(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the General Cour t.11.12.2017 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union C 424/57
Pleas in law and main arguments
In suppor t of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:
1.First plea in law, alleging several manif est errors of assessment
—Reliance on Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 (2)
That regulation concer ns a categor y of persons other than that to which the applicant belongs and is theref ore not a 
reason why the applicant should be included in the list at issue.
—Allega tion of a breach of contract
The Council justifi es the decision to add the applicant to the list at issue on the basis that, inter alia, gas turbines were 
supplied to Crimea, and that the provisions of an original supply contract with Siemens Gas Turbine Technology 
OOO were breach ed. The appraisal of whether there was in fact a breach of contract is a matter to be determined 
under Russian law. The parties to the supply contract have institute d proceedings before the Mosco w Cour t of 
Arbitration. Until such time as that Cour t of Arbitration has decided the case, the alleg ation of a breach of contract 
constitutes an insuff iciently solid factual basis and is unsuitable as a justification for Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP).
—Transpor t of gas turbines to Crimea
The alleg ation against the applicant is that it supplied gas turbines to Crimea. The published press articles are not 
clear and are based on anonymous sources. It is the task of the compet ent EU author ity to establish that the reasons 
relied on are sound; it is not the task of the under taking concer ned to adduce evidence to the contrar y, namely that 
those reasons are not sound.
—Infringement of the principles of inter national humanitar ian law
Russia is required under inter national law to restore and maintain public order in Crimea, which at the present time 
also includes ensur ing a safe and constant energy supply . The humanitar ian need for such an energy supply is not 
take n into account in the statement of reasons relating to Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP), and nor are the rules of 
inter national humanitar ian law.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringem ent of the obliga tion to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 
TFEU
Decision 2017/1418 infringes the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. The 
reasons stated in No 39 in the annex to the decision are, overall, vague and insufficiently detailed. They do not provide 
specific reasons as to why the Council, in the exercise of its discretion, decided to apply restr ictive measures to the 
applicant and are thus not at all adequate to satisfy the requirements of the oblig ation to state reasons under the second 
paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defenc e and the right to effective legal prot ection
By failing to comp ly with the obliga tion to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, the Council 
infringed the applicant’s right of defe nce and right to effective legal prot ection, since it is not possible for the applicant to 
formulat e the best possible defe nce in the absence of knowledge as to the main reasons why it was added to the list at 
issue. 
(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1418 of 4 August 2017 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concer ning restr ictive measures in 
respect of actions under mining or threatening the territori al integrity , sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 203 I, 
p. 5).
(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 692/2014 concer ning restr ictive 
measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 46).C 424/58 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union 11.12.2017