Case T-212/22: Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Prigozhina v Council
Date: 2022-04-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, national sovereignty, natural person, territorial law








C_2022237EN.01006202.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/62






Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Prigozhina v Council
(Case T-212/22)
(2022/C 237/81)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Violetta Prigozhina (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action of Ms Violetta Prigozhina admissible and;




In so far as they concern the applicant,






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP; (1)











—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014; (2)











—


rule that in any event the name of Ms Violetta Prigozhina should be removed without delay from the contested acts;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant claims that the Council failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for the contested acts by providing no specific reason for listing the name of the applicant in the body of the contested acts or to understand the logic leading to that listing.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a lack of substantive legality. The applicant claims that the reasoning is vitiated by factual errors which deny it a sufficient basis and contains a manifest error of assessment. The applicant disputes being currently linked to the undertaking Concord Management and Consulting LLC. She also disputes her son’s alleged association with Wagner Group and claims that, in any event, it cannot legitimately be inferred from the links to her son that she may have contributed to compromising the territorial integrity of Ukraine.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a misuse of powers. According to the applicant, the true aim pursued through her listing is, in reality, indirectly to target her son Mr Yevgeniy Prigozhin.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the lack of precision in the reasons for her listing prevent her from usefully challenging them.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that the restrictive measures applied to her are disproportionate in that they prevent the attainment of the objective pursued by the Council.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 of 23 February 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 42 I, p. 98).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 of 23 February 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 42 I, p. 3).