Case T-737/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014  — Vnesheconombank v Council
Date: 2014-10-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, dual-use good, economic sanctions, international sanctions, oil industry, provision of services, territorial dispute, trade restriction








C_2015007EN.01004101.xml










12.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/41





Action brought on 24 October 2014 — Vnesheconombank v Council
(Case T-737/14)
(2015/C 007/46)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga and J. Iriate Ángel, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove the applicant’s name from the annex thereto;










—


annul Article 5 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove the applicant’s name from Annex III thereto;










—


annul replacement Article 1 as provided for by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove the applicant’s name from Annex I referred to therein;










—


annul replacement Article 5 as provided for by Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove its name from the Annex in which the applicant is included;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the abovementioned provisions which relate to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, in so far as those provisions concern the applicant.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, given that the contested provisions fail to state, in relation to VEB, any reasons whatsoever, which means that it cannot properly prepare its defence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based, since there is no genuine factual or evidential basis for the latter.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards (i) the reasons stated for the provisions, (ii) the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and (iii) the rights of defence and of property, given that the requirement to state reasons and the need to produce genuine evidence have not been observed, which has an impact on the other rights. The rights of the defence have, in particular, been infringed, since the Council, despite the appropriate request being made in good time, handed over the file concerning the restrictions — which was short and simple to assemble — very belatedly, thereby preventing the applicant from properly preparing its defence.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, given that there is objective, precise and consistent evidence that supports the argument that the Council, in adopting the restrictive measures, was pursuing aims other than those it claimed to be pursuing.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property inasmuch as that right has been severely restricted without any proper grounds and with no regard for the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as VEB’s relative position in the various markets has been adversely affected without any justification.