Action brought on 22 May 2024 – Rotenberg v Council

(Case T-268/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Igor Rotenberg (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Moretto and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul:

Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/847 of 12 March 2024 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 March 2024;

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/849 of 12 March 2024 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 March 2024;

collectively referred to as the “Contested Acts”, in so far as the Contested Acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 41 (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment – failure to discharge the burden of proof – breach of the listing criteria set forth in Article 1(1) (b) (d) and 2(1)(d)(f) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 and in Article 3(1)(d)(f) of Council Regulation (EU) no 269/2014 of 17 March 2014, both concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, as well as a plea of illegality under article 277 TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the applicant’s fundamental rights, as well as breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business and a breach of Article 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

____________