Action brought on 24 November 2023 – Timchenko v Council

(Case T-1107/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elena Petrovna Timchenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, J. Goffin, L. Burguin, S. Bonifassi and E. Fedorova, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

order the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022;

order the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it extends the application of the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022;

order the Council to pay EUR 1 000 000 on a provisional basis in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds relied on by the Council and, in particular, as regards the designation criterion applied to the applicant and the nature of the measures adopted.

Second plea, alleging a failure to observe the Council’s obligation to state reasons.

Third plea, alleging a failure to observe the right to be heard.

Fourth plea, alleging a failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

Fifth plea, alleging a failure to observe the applicant’s fundamental rights deriving from her fundamental status as Union citizen. The applicant submits that the interference with her right to move freely within the territory of the European Union as guaranteed by the Treaties, under the CFSP, has no legal basis and is disproportionate and unnecessary.

Sixth plea, alleging a failure to observe the applicant’s other fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular her right to property and her right to respect for private and family life.

____________