CELEX: 62014TN0732
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-732/14: Action brought on 23 October 2014 — Sberbank of Russia v Council

19.1.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 16/41
            
         
      Action brought on 23 October 2014 — Sberbank of Russia v Council
      (Case T-732/14)
      (2015/C 016/65)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rose, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, P. Crowther and J. Fearns, Solicitors)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014, Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 insofar as they apply to the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  make a declaration of illegality as regards the provisions summarised at paragraph 52 of the application;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order that the Council should pay the applicant’s costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine were fulfilled as regards the applicant. The applicant alleges that it does not fulfil the listing criteria and that the Council thus acted ultra vires in listing it in the contested measures.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Council breached its obligation to give reasons for listing the applicant insofar as it failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review insofar as it did not inform the applicant of its inclusion in the contested measures and failed to provide any evidence to support the applicant’s inclusion.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicant in the contested measures amounts to an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of its fundamental rights including its right to protection of its business and reputation.