Action brought on 18 May 2022 — Shuvalov v Council

(Case T-289/22)

(2022/C 318/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Igor Shuvalov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. Iriarte Ángel and E. Delage González, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (1) in so far as it refers to or could affect the applicant.

— annul Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, (2) in so far as it refers to or could affect 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.

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested restrictions are based, in so far as those restrictions were imposed on the applicant without any current and genuine factual or evidential basis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, in so far as the contested measures lack proper reasoning in respect of the applicant, which prevents him from putting forward a proper defence.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to freedom of expression, in so far as the applicant is sanctioned on the basis of certain observations which are covered by that fundamental right.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the statement of reasons for the contested measures, lack of genuine evidence for the reasons alleged and infringement of the rights of freedom of expression, defence and property, in so far as the requirement to adduce current and genuine evidence and the requirement to state reasons have not been complied with, which affects the other rights referred to above.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, in so far as that right has been unjustly restricted and, moreover, in a disproportionate manner.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the comparative position of the applicant has been adversely affected without there being any justification.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in so far as there is objective, precise and consistent evidence to show that in imposing and extending the restrictive measures different objectives were intended to those stated by the Council.

(1) OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6; as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 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 42I, p. 98).

(2) OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6; as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 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 241, p. 3).