Case T-434/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014  — Arbuzov v Council
Date: 2014-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, rights of the defence








C_2014282EN.01004202.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/42





Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Arbuzov v Council
(Case T-434/14)
2014/C 282/56
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková and P. Radošovský, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul 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 (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and










—


order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs in full.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence






—


The applicant claims in support of the action, inter alia, that he was included on the list in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP before the investigation into his alleged criminal activity in Ukraine was opened.










—


The applicant goes on to state that there was an infringement of the right to a fair trial because there was a breach of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence. Further, the applicant submits that the Council did not inform the applicant of his inclusion on the list and of the grounds for the restrictive measures taken against the applicant, nor did it permit the applicant to become acquainted with those facts within a reasonable time after the introduction of those measures. The applicant submits that he could not comment effectively on the contested decision or exercise his right of defence in the time immediately after its adoption.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council exceeded its powers






—


The applicant objects to formal defects in the Council’s contested measure. In the applicant’s opinion, the reason formulated in terms of the criminal law in the part of the measures containing the statement of reasons is entirely inadequate and evidently does not include genuine policy reasons, or reasons concerning the alleged infringement of human rights, which are stated only in general terms in the preamble. The applicant further submits that the Council exceeded its power because the officially communicated reasons for the measures do not fall within the framework within which the Council is entitled to adopt measures.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property






—


The applicant claims in that regard that the sanction is disproportionate and amounts to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the right to property.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the integrity of the person and to respect for private and family life, and breach of the principle of non-discrimination






—


Here the applicant claims that the measure adopted is an act that is detrimental to the right to the integrity of the person, affecting the applicant’s family and private sphere.










—


According to the applicant, he has suffered damage to his good reputation and a loss of dignity owing to the fact that he was de facto accused by the Council, in the contested decision and in the implementing decision, of transferring Ukrainian State funds abroad and of human rights infringements, although not one of these offences has ever been proved against the applicant and, at the time when he was included on the list, the applicant was not even under investigation for the commission of such offences.










—


In addition the applicant claims that the Council’s measure is discriminatory because he was included on the list without any real reason, and, vice versa, the list does not include persons who should be included on it because of their activities against the interests of Ukraine.