Case C-731/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-737/14 Vnesheconombank (VEB) v Council
Date: 2018-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, abuse of power, bank, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, right to justice








C_2019065EN.01002501.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/25






Appeal brought on 23 November 2018 by Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2018 in Case T-737/14 Vnesheconombank (VEB) v Council
(Case C-731/18 P)
(2019/C 65/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 in Case T-737/14;










—


give final judgment in the proceedings by granting the forms of order sought by the applicant, now the appellant, at first instance; that is to say, annul Article 1 of Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1) of 31 July 2014, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (2) of 31 July 2014, the new Article 1 in accordance with Decision 2014/659/CFSP (3) of 8 September 2014 and the new Article 5 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (4) of 8 September 2014, in so far as they concern VEB and remove its name from the annexes in which it is included;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs of both actions.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal:






1.


Error in law in that the General Court erroneously ruled that the Council had met its duty to state reasons.










2.


Error in law in that the General Court erroneously ruled that there was no manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the relevant provisions of the contested measures are based; this also amounts to a misuse of powers.










3.


Error in law in that the General Court erroneously ruled that the right to an effective remedy had been respected.










4.


Error in law in that that the General Court erroneously ruled that VEB’s right to property had been respected; this also amounts to an infringement of the principle of equality.






(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13)

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1)

(3)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54)

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3)