CELEX: 62020TN0291
Language: en
Date: 2020-05-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-291/20: Action brought on 14 May 2020 — Yanukovych v Council

6.7.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 222/41
            
         
      Action brought on 14 May 2020 — Yanukovych v Council
      (Case T-291/20)
      (2020/C 222/45)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov on Don, Russia) (represented by: M. Anderson, Solicitor)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 (1), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul Council Regulation (EU) 2020/370 (2), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Council to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. The Council has failed to ensure that there was a sufficiently solid factual basis for the Applicant’s designation and failed to verify that the decisions of the Ukrainian authorities upon which it relied were taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify the actual and specific reasons for the applicant’s designation. The Council has also failed to identify the reasons it considers the decisions of the Ukrainian authorities on which it relies to have been adopted in accordance with the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. The Council has failed to consult with the Applicant prior to the re-designation, failed to provide the applicant with all the material upon which it relied, and failed to afford the applicant a proper or fair opportunity to correct errors or produce information. At no stage has the applicant been provided with serious, credible or concrete evidence and reasoning to justify the imposition of restrictive measures and there is no indication that the Council took properly into account the applicant’s Observations prior to making its decision.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council lacked a proper legal basis for the Eighth Amending Instruments.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached in that the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because inter alia: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; and (ii) it is neither necessary nor appropriate to freeze all the applicant’s assets since the Ukrainian authorities have now quantified the value of the losses allegedly being pursued in underlying criminal cases against the applicant.
               
            
         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020, L 71, p. 10).
      
         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2020, L 71, p. 1).