Case C-11/18 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15: Klymenko v Council
Date: 2018-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, trade restriction








C_2018094EN.01001201.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/12





Appeal brought on 5 January 2018 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15: Klymenko v Council
(Case C-11/18 P)
(2018/C 094/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (represented by: M. Phelippeau, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2017 in Case T-245/15.
The appellant requests the Court to grant the relief sought in the proceedings before the General Court below namely:






—


to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 (1); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 (2);










—


to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 (3), and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 (4);










—


to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 (5); and CouncilImplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 (6),




in so far as those measures concern the Appellant; and to order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal and the application for annulment in the statement of modification.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward three grounds.

First, he claims that the General Court was wrong to consider that the Council of the European Union had identified actual and specific reasons justifying the imposition of restrictive measures on him and that the General Court was wrong to describe the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office as being a ‘high judicial authority’.

Second, he submits that the General Court was wrong to consider that listing criterion contained in the acts at issue corresponded to the objectives of the CFSP.

Third, he maintains that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the restrictive measure was not constitutive of an infringement of the rights to property.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62 p. 25)

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1)

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76);

(4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1);

(5)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34);

(6)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1)