CELEX: 62011TN0438
Language: en
Date: 2011-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-438/11: Action brought on 12 August 2011 — BelTechExport v Council

1.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 290/15
            
         Action brought on 12 August 2011 — BelTechExport v Council
   (Case T-438/11)
   2011/C 290/21
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: BelTechExport ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Vaitkute Pavan, A. Smaliukas and E. Matulionyte, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1), to the extent that it concerns the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 25), to the extent that it concerns the applicant; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for inclusion of the applicant in the lists of the persons to whom restrictive measures apply.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the right of defence and the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           at no time it provided for the communication of detailed reasons for the inclusion of the applicant in the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           it did not provide the applicant with the possibility to effectively exercise its’ rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to the benefit of a procedure allowing it to effectively request its removal from the lists of persons covered by the restrictive measures.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in that it held in the contested measures that the applicant is the largest export/import company of defence products in Belarus, hence it is in some way linked to or associated with the violations of electoral standards and of human rights or crackdown on civil society in Belarus.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed fundamental right to property provided for in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1 of the Protocol No 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in an unjustified and disproportionate manner without compelling evidence.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringes the principle of proportionality in that it imposed a disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of the applicant without providing adequate procedural guarantees and compelling evidence.