Case T-340/14: Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Klyuyev v Council
Date: 2014-05-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2014261EN.01002702.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/27





Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Klyuyev v Council
(Case T-340/14)
2014/C 261/51
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant:






—


Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine; and










—


Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.














—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal basis for the contested decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU. The applicant submits that as the contested decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the contested regulation. At the time the restrictive measures were imposed, there was, according to the applicant, no charge or claim against him that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law or violated any human rights in Ukraine.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection as the basis on which the applicant is listed amounts to a public proclamation of guilt prior to any judicial determination of the issue and as the applicant has not been given any particular information in relation to the reasons indicated in the contested measures for his inclusion on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the restrictive measures despite his request to the Council for information.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his listing. The applicant alleges that no details have been provided as to the nature of the conduct of the applicant that led to his listing. The applicant further alleges that no details have been provided as to the entity responsible for the criminal proceedings to which the applicant is allegedly subject, nor as to the date on which the proceedings were opened against the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation as the restrictive measures were not provided for by law and were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council relied on materially inaccurate facts and committed a manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits that according to the information available to him no criminal proceedings or investigations are being conducted against him in relation to the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer out of Ukraine.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to ensure the relevance and validity of the evidence underlying the listing of the applicant as it failed to consider whether the current Acting General Prosecutor of Ukraine had authority under the Constitution of Ukraine to commence investigations against the applicant and failed to take into consideration that an investigation against the applicant in Austria was closed because of insufficient evidence to support the allegations against the applicant of embezzlement of state funds.