EN
28.11.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 451/21
6.
Sixth plea in law, alleging insufficient and contradicting change of motivation: infringement of the obligation to state reasons, infringement of article 296 of the TFEU infringement of an essential procedural requirement and of the right to an effective remedy.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1315 of 26 July 2022 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2022 L 198, p. 19).
Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34).
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1308 of 26 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2022 L 198, p. 1).
Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2016 L 12, p. 1).
Action brought on 12 October 2022 — Fridman and Others v Council (Case T-635/22) (2022/C 451/25) Language of the case: French Parties Applicants: Mikhail Fridman (London, United Kingdom), Petr Aven (Virginia Water, United Kingdom), German Khan (London) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 of 21 July 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 (1) in so far as it concerns the applicants; and — order the Council to pay the costs.
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 lack of any legal basis.
According to the applicants, the Council cannot impose any positive obligations, particularly where they are so burdensome, on the persons on which it imposes sanctions. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging lack of any legal basis and infringement of Articles 4, 5, 25 and 40 TEU and Articles 3, 4, 82, 83 and 215 TFEU.
The applicants claim, in that connection, that, by requiring Member States to treat any deviation from the Council’s requirement to declare assets as a circumvention of sanctions, the Council, which is aware that the circumvention of sanctions is a criminal offence in 25 of the 27 Member States, has acted as a legislative authority in criminal matters.
(1)
OJ 2022 L 194, p. 1.
Action brought on 12 October 2022 — U. I. Lapp v EUIPO — Labkable Asia (Labkable Solutions for cables) (Case T-636/22) (2022/C 451/26) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: U. I. Lapp GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: R. Ingerl and M. Ringer, lawyers)