Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 May 2022 — VEB.RF v Council

(Case T-288/22)

(2022/C 318/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: State Development Corporation ‘VEB.RF’ (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, (1) of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended, (2) in so far as that decision refers to or may affect the applicant.

— annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, (3) of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as amended, (4) in so far as that regulation refers to or may affect the applicant.

— annul Article 1(e), in conjunction with Annex VIII, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (5) of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended, (6) in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant.

— annul Article 5h, in conjunction with Annex XIV, of Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014, (7) of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended, (8) in so far as it refers to or may affect the applicant.

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies of the following pleas in law:

1. Pleas relied on in support of the first two claims: — a) Manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based. — b) Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons. — c) Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection. — d) Infringement of the right to property and the principle of proportionality. — e) Infringement of the principle of equal treatment. — f) Misuse of power.

2. Pleas relied on in support of the last two claims: — a) Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons. — b) Manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based. — c) Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection. — d) Infringement of the right to property. — e) Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

(1) OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16.

(2) 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).

(3) OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6.

(4) 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 42I, p. 3).

(5) OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13.

(6) Amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 63, p. 5).

(7) OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1.

(8) Amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022, L 63, p. 1).