do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-289/19: Action brought on 1 May 2019 — Arbuzov v Council
Date: 2019-05-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership








C_2019246EN.01002801.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/28






Action brought on 1 May 2019 — Arbuzov v Council
(Case T-289/19)
(2019/C 246/30)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as that Decision and that Regulation relate to the applicant; and










—


Declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration.
The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property.
The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.
C-352/19 P: Appeal brought on 1 May 2019 by Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-178/18 Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission
Date: 2019-05-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, health risk, herbicide, market approval, plant health legislation








C_2019220EN.01002601.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/26






Appeal brought on 1 May 2019 by Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2019 in Case T-178/18 Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission
(C-352/19 P)
(2019/C 220/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bailleux, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the order of 28 February 2019 (T-178/18);










—


Rule on the admissibility of the action for annulment brought by the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (1), and, as to the remainder, refer the case back to the General Court;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested order, the General Court declared the action brought by the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale inadmissible on the ground of lack of interest in bringing proceedings. More specifically, the Court held that the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale was not directly concerned by the contested regulation, within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU.
In support of its appeal, the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale raises a single plea in law which is divided into two parts.
First, the Court’s refusal to examine the conditions for admissibility of the action in the light of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention was based on an incorrect interpretation of Articles 2(4) and 9 of that Convention and is inadequately reasoned.
Secondly, the General Court’s finding that the applicant has not been directly affected results from insufficient reasoning and failure to comply with Article 263(4) TFEU and Articles 20(2), 32(1), 36(3), 41(1), 43(5) and 43(6) of Regulation 1107/2009.
In the second part of its application, developed in the event that the Court grants the application for annulment of the contested order and decides to rule itself on the admissibility of the appeal, the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale sets out the grounds on which its appeal must be declared admissible in so far as it satisfies the conditions of Article 263(4) TFEU.


(1)  OJ 2017 L 333, p. 10.