Case T-261/24: Action brought on 17 May 2024 – Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council and Commission
Date: 2024-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, potash, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rail transport, right of establishment, trade restriction








C_202406262EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6262


28.10.2024






Action brought on 17 May 2024 – Birių Krovinių Terminalas v Council and Commission


(Case T-261/24)

(C/2024/6262)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Birių Krovinių Terminalas UAB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: V. Nikitinas and A. Staševskaja, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


review, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the legality of the Commission’s actions on the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ and to annul the following Commission’s documents in terms of defining the term ‘transfer’ as contrary to EU legislation and case law: (i) the ‘Consolidated Frequently Asked Questions on the Implementation of Council Regulation No 833/2014 and Council Regulation No 269/2014’, issued on 22 June 2022 with subsequent amendments, and (ii) ‘Transfer’ in relation ‘Transport’;










—


recognize that, in the absence of the necessary competence, by allowing and subsequently not eliminating the interpretation of the term ‘transfer’ in the ‘Consolidated Frequently Asked Questions on the Implementation of Council Regulation No 833/2014 and Council Regulation No 269/2014’, issued on 22 June 2022 with subsequent amendments, which is not in line with EU law, the Commission has abused its powers by evading the initiation of the legislative procedure laid down in Article 31(1) TEU and has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 17(1) TEU;










—


annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, (1) as amended and supplemented and Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012, (2) as subsequently amended and supplemented in the part where they are incompatible with the provisions of international agreements and EU law regarding the restriction of the transit of potash fertilizers from Belarus to third countries through the BKT terminal (port of Klaipeda);










—


recognize, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU, the inaction of the Council and the Commission on the applicant’s applications containing a call for action aimed at eliminating violations of international agreements and other EU legislation, and implementing the decisions taken by them;










—


oblige the Council and the Commission to provide in Regulation 765/2006 and Decision 2012/642/CFS the provisions according to which the restrictive measures established by them do not apply to the railway transportation of Belarusian potash through the territory of the Union between the Belarus/Lithuania border and the BKT terminal (port of Klaipeda), as well as to the other operations related to transit to third countries, including, but not limited to, transhipment, freight, inspection, financial and payment services, etc., or, alternatively, require the Commission and/or the Council to issue an appropriate official clarification or guidance;










—


oblige the Council and the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission abused its powers, avoiding the initiation of the legislative procedure, making obvious mistakes in the law, and violating the principles of legality, legal certainty and institutional balance.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Regulation 765/2006 and Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP are incompatible with the provisions of international agreements and EU legislation. The applicant makes the following arguments in support of its claim for annulment:






—


violation of the principles of legality and proportionality;










—


violation of the principle of legal certainty;










—


violation of the principle of legitimate expectations;










—


violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to freedom to conduct business.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure of the Council and the Commission to act.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1).

(2)  Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6262/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)