Case T-249/22: Action brought on 6 May 2022 — Ponomarenko v Council
Date: 2022-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, territorial law








C_2022244EN.01004301.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/43






Action brought on 6 May 2022 — Ponomarenko v Council
(Case T-249/22)
(2022/C 244/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Alexander Ponomarenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Komuczky, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 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 59, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 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 58, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order, pursuant to Article 134 the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





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 procedural error.






—


The Council failed to comply with its verification obligation, as the reason provided for inclusion on the list in the documents is inconsistent with the statement of reasons.










—


In addition, the evidence submitted is irrelevant rationae temporis and could not be examined to the required standard in the short time available.










—


Furthermore, the facts accepted by the Council, even if they were true, are not such as to support the adoption of the contested acts.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.






—


The facts accepted by the Council are inaccurate. The applicant is a successful businessman and is not in any way involved in the matters cited by the Council.










—


They are also too old to justify the reason for inclusion on the list, formulated in the present tense, on which the Council relies.










—


The evidence submitted by the Council is based solely on unreliable sources which did not verify their statements. They also contradict each other and do not correspond to the reality of the facts. Moreover, they are too old to be of any relevance.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
The measures adopted by the Council, in so far as they concern the applicant, are disproportionate, since they are not capable of achieving the objectives pursued by the Council.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to property.
The applicant’s fundamental right to property has been infringed by the contested legal acts. The infringement is also not justified.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
Since the applicant was included on the list, whereas many other businessmen in comparable positions were not, the Council infringed the principle of equal treatment by the contested acts.