CELEX: 62018TN0284
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-284/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Arbuzov v Council

201806290751986712018/C 249/462842018TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503363721Case T-284/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Arbuzov v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN3610120180503EN0046361372Action brought on 3 May 2018 — Arbuzov v Council
   (Case T-284/18)2018/C 249/46Language of the case: Czech
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as it relates to Sergej Arbuzov.
         
      
            —
         
         
            Declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by Sergej Arbuzov.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to sound administration.
            The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it primarily based that decision on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in the Ukraine.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to property.
            The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.