CELEX: 62014TN0720
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-720/14: Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Rotenberg v Council

12.1.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 7/37
            
         Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Rotenberg v Council
   (Case T-720/14)
   (2015/C 007/42)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, S. Hey and H. Brunskill, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014, in so far as those measures apply to him;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that the Council pays his costs.
            
         
      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 that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached data protection principles.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to protection of property, business and reputation.