CELEX: 62014TN0734
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-734/14: Action brought on 24 October 2014 — VTB Bank/Council

19.1.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 16/43
            
         
      Action brought on 24 October 2014 — VTB Bank/Council
      (Case T-734/14)
      (2015/C 016/67)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: VTB Bank OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The Applicant claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 (1), Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 (2), Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (4), in so far as they apply to the Applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare illegal/inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for listing the Applicant in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (the ‘Contested Measures’). The Council is obliged to provide the specific reasons why a particular entity has been included in the restrictive measures in question. The Council failed to state any reasons for its decision to apply the Contested Measures to the Applicant, or alternatively has failed to provide sufficient/adequate reasons or even to notify the Applicant of its inclusion, and has accordingly not complied with this obligation.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that the criteria for listing in the Contested Measures were fulfilled with regard to the Applicant. It is not managed by the Russian State and does not have “an explicit mandate to promote competitiveness of the Russian economy, its diversification and encouragement of investment.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the Applicant’s rights of defence and effective judicial review. The Council’s failure to notify the Applicant of its inclusion in the Contested Measures, or to provide reasons for the Applicant’s inclusion, or any evidence in support, or an opportunity to make observations in response, breaches the Applicant’s rights of the defence, and its right to effective judicial protection by this Court.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. In particular, the Applicant’s inclusion in the Contested Measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the Applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment and use of property guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its reputation.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  As regard the declaration of illegality, first plea in law, alleging that Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, Article 5 of the Regulation 833/2014, Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP, and Article 1(5) of Regulation 960/2014 are unlawful because they are not necessary or proportionate to the objectives that the Contested Measures are apparently intended to achieve, namely imposing pressure on the Government of Russia to change its policies relating to Ukraine.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  As regards the declaration of illegality, second plea in law alleging that the Contested Measures breach obligations of the European Union in international law, including the European Union’s obligations under Article II(1), Article XVI and Article XVII of the GATS, and a number of provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation between the European Communities and the Russian Federation. Moreover, the Contested Measures have resulted in the Member States being in breach of their obligations under Friendship, Commerce and Navigation and similar treaties.
               
            
         (1)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13.
      
         (2)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 1.
      
         (3)  OJ L 271, 12.9.2014, p. 54.
      
         (4)  OJ L 271, 12.9.2014, p. 3.