CELEX: 62018TN0286
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-286/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council

201806220591970182018/C 240/602862018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180507525211Case T-286/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5210120180507EN0060521521Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-286/18)2018/C 240/60Language of the case: German
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, 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 (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as they relate to the applicant;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order specific measures of organisation pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
         
      
      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 infringement of the principle of proportionality
            The applicant claims that the restrictive measures, which have now been ordered for the fifth time, are clearly disproportionate.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment
            The applicant submits that the Council did not have a sufficiently solid factual basis, as required pursuant to case-law, in order to take the decision to extend the restrictive measures.