do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-193/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — OT v Council
Date: 2022-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, children's rights, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2022213EN.01004801.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/48






Action brought on 15 April 2022 — OT v Council
(Case T-193/22)
(2022/C 213/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Sand, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87, p. 1.), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87, p. 1.) in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Council to bear the full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.





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 Article 1(d) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1) are unlawful, and infringement of the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and sound administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child and infringement of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the facts.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of proportionality.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property, the freedom to conduct a business and the right to pursue a profession.
Case T-203/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Netherlands v Commission
Date: 2022-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: aid to agriculture, deadline for payment, reimbursement of aid








C_2022237EN.01005901.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/59






Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-203/22)
(2022/C 237/76)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 February 2022 bearing reference number Ref. Ares (2022) 1097097 rejecting the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for review of the decision of 6 January 2022 and for an extension of four years of the eight-year period for recovery of amounts wrongly paid in the FresQ case;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





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 that the decision of 15 February 2022 is based on the incorrect assumption that the recovery procedure is not yet concluded.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the third subparagraph of Article 54(2) of Regulation 1306/2013 in so far as it assumes that the exceedance of the eight-year period is attributable to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Case T-205/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex
Date: 2022-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Mediterranean Sea, access to EU information, confidentiality, illegal migration, migratory movement, public safety








C_2022244EN.01003901.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/39






Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex
(Case T-205/22)
(2022/C 244/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Marie Naass (Berlin, Germany), Sea Watch eV (Berlin) (represented by: I. Van Damme and Q. Declève, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Frontex Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022;










—


order Frontex to bear the costs of the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that, in its Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022, Frontex did not appropriately state the reasons for its refusal to disclose certain documents pertaining to a specific event that took place in the Mediterranean sea on 30 July 2021, on the basis of the public security exception under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022 violates Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 by refusing partial access to the requested documents.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).