Case T-1095/23: Action brought on 21 November 2023 — OT v Council
Date: 2023-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, judicial review, natural person, right to an effective remedy








C_202401866EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1866


11.3.2024





Action brought on 21 November 2023 — OT v Council
(Case T-1095/23)
(C/2024/1866)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 226, p. 104), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 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 2023 L 226, p. 3), in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


as a consequence, order the Council to withdraw the name of the applicant from the annexes to Council Implementing Regulation EU 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The observations set out allow the applicant to raise a first plea in law, making clear the Council’s alleged error of assessment.










2.


By a second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the measures against him, which consist in a complete freeze on all of his funds and a prohibition from moving within the territory of the European Union, are resolutely disproportionate considering that he has no links with the Russian authorities and is, above all, powerless as regards putting pressure on the Russian decision-makers, which constitutes the stated objective of the Council to justify the restrictive measures at issue.










3.


Lastly, by a third plea in law, alleging infringement of his rights of defence and to the guarantee of effective judicial protection, the applicant criticises the continued disparity that he must suffer both in the administrative proceedings before the Council, seeking the review of his situation, and before the General Court of the European Union, on the ground that the Council keeps some essential documents without making them known, does not respond to the applicant’s arguments, fails to take into account the arguments and evidence that the applicant produces and refrains from any periodic six-monthly review. The applicant adds to those complaints the absence of solid and verifiable proof and the weak nature of the files and evidence submitted as a basis for the decisions to maintain him on the list at issue.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1866/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)