Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Ismailova v Council

(Case T-234/22)

(2022/C 237/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gulbakhor Ismailova (Tachkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, annul: — Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, (1) regarding Ms Ismailova; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, (2) regarding Ms Ismailova; — Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3) — Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4)

— in the alternative, annul: — Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, regarding Ms Ismailova; — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, regarding Ms Ismailova; — Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; — Article 1(f) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022;

— in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay Ms Ismailova the sum of EUR 20 000 pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in respect of the costs which she had to incur for the protection of her interests.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the new criteria set out by the Council and made clear by Council Decision No 2022/329/CFSP of 25 February 2022 and by Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 are unlawful.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in that it is based on unlawful criteria.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful Due to the failure to demonstrate the fundamental criterion that the person concerned provided support for the current war in Ukraine.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in so far as the Council fails to comply with the obligation to state reasons and the burden of proof of the Council.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant is unlawful in the absence of well-founded reasons set out by the Council.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property of the applicant.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the commercial freedom and the freedom to come and go of the applicant.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 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 110, p. 55).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 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 110, p. 3).

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 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 50, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending 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 51, p. 1).