EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/27

Appeal brought on 23 November 2016 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council

(Case C-599/16 P)

(2017/C 030/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, extended composition) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-348/14 to the extent particularised in the Appeal, namely paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of that Judgment;

— grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court to the extent particularised below namely: — to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) (‘the Second Amending Decision’); — to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP (2), and — to annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (3); in so far as those measures concern the Appellant; and

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal and the application for annulment in the statement of modification.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the listing criterion in Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by the Second Amending Decision, is compatible with the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as stated in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. The General Court failed to recognise that the alleged acts of misappropriation of state funds must, at the very least, be the subject of an ongoing prosecution or other judicial proceedings in the country concerned, in circumstances where, as in this case, there is credible evidence that the country concerned does not have a consistent and adequate record of respect for fundamental principles of human rights or compliance with the rule of law.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in (1) failing to conclude that there was credible evidence that Ukraine does not have a consistent and adequate record of human rights compliance or compliance with the rule of law and (2) describing certain Ukrainian authorities upon whose evidence the Council of the European Union relied as being a ‘high judicial authority’. The General Court further erred by not providing any reasons for its views regarding (1) and (2).

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law (1) in concluding that the inclusion of the Appellant’s name in the list, on the basis of a letter dated 30 December 2014 from the Ukrainian authorities, complies with the listing criterion and (2) in concluding that there was no manifest error of assessment by the Council regarding the Appellant’s inclusion in the list.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 24, p. 16).

(2) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 62, p. 25).

(3) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 62, p. 1).