CELEX: 62014CN0535
Language: en
Date: 2014-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-535/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council

26.1.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 26/20
            
         Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council
   (Case C-535/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/24)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Vadzim Ipatau (represented by: M. Michalauskas, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 (Case T-646/11),
            
         
               —
            
            
               give final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment,
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
   In the first place, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the right to effective judicial protection by denying the filing of an application for legal aid any suspensory effect on the period prescribed for bringing an action for annulment against the contested measure.
   In the second place, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed his rights of defence. The General Court held that the Council was not required to disclose to the appellant the evidence against him, nor required to give him the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 (2).
   In the third place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the grounds set out in the contested measures were sufficient.
   In the last place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the contested measures were not disproportionate.
   
      (1)  Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).
   
      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7).