Case T-723/20: Action brought on 11 December 2020 — Prigozhin v Council
Date: 2020-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Libya, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, rights of the defence








C_2021044EN.01005201.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/52






Action brought on 11 December 2020 — Prigozhin v Council
(Case T-723/20)
(2021/C 44/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Lewis, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1481 of 14 October 2020 implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1) and Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/1483 of 14 October 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (2);










—


order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for including the applicant on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya were fulfilled in the applicant’s case. The applicant alleges that the Council has not identified the entity described as Wagner Group, avers that he has no knowledge of an entity known as Wagner Group, that he has not had any links with any such entity and has not been engaged with nor has he supported it.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed its obligation to state its reasons for taking the Decision. It is alleged that the statement of reasons is not appropriate to restrictive measures, does not state the matters of fact and law and does not make actual and specific reference to the precise information contained in the relevant file indicating that a decision has been made in respect of the applicant.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate and substantiated reasons and made manifest errors of assessment in deciding to make the Decision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers as a result of manifest errors of assessment in deciding to make the Decision. It is alleged that the decision to impose the restrictive measures on the applicant was taken with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving political objectives and not for the stated reasons.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. Given that the applicant alleges that the purpose of the Decision was to pursue political objectives as against the stated reasons, the applicant contends that he is entitled to but has not been provided with all documents relating to the taking of the Decision.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental human rights, including the right to protection of property, business and movement.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed the principle of foreseeability of the acts of the Union. It is alleged that the vagueness of the applicant’s alleged conduct as set out in the statement of reasons make it impossible for a person to know what acts he or she should refrain from in order to avoid the imposition of restrictive measures.






(1)  OJ 2020, L 341, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2020, L 341, p. 16.