Action brought on 8 December 2023 – Mndoiants v Council

(Case T-1149/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Serguey Mndoiants (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: F. Bélot and P. Tkhor, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in the annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 of 17 March 2014;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 is so far as it maintains the applicant’s name on the list in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 2014/269 of 17 March 2014;

in the alternative, find, on the basis of Article 277 TFEU, that the designation criterion set out in Article 2(1)(g) of Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 and in Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 2014/269, as amended respectively by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 and by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1089, both of 5 June 2023, is inapplicable to the applicant on the grounds of its unlawfulness;

order the Council 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 infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, of the duty to state reasons, of the obligation to review decisions and of the right to be heard. The applicant argues that the information provided by the Council is not capable of justifying the maintenance of sanctions against him given its insufficient nature. In addition, the Council continues to disregard the information and observations communicated by the applicant, such that it is in breach of its obligation to review and reassess and is infringing the applicant’s right to be heard.

2.    Second plea, claiming error of assessment. The information relied on by the Council in order to maintain the applicant on the list is insufficient and is not in any way capable of demonstrating that the applicant is a leading businessperson operating in Russia or a businessperson active in economic sectors that constitute a substantial source of revenue for the government of the Russian Federation.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant argues that the restrictive measures imposed on him, firstly, discriminate against him, and, secondly, are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by those measures.

4.    Fourth plea, alleging infringement of fundamental individual rights, including the right to property and the right to respect for private and family life, the home and communications. In adding the applicant to the list, the Council breached the principle of proportionality. Accordingly, those interferences cannot be considered to be legitimate for the purposes of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

5.    In the alternative, the fifth plea alleges the inapplicability of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 owing to their being unlawful. The new criterion of point (g) is contrary to the rights of the defence laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is not founded on a sufficiently solid factual basis and it contravenes the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and the prohibition of arbitrariness. Accordingly, the new criterion of point (g) must, owing to its unlawfulness, be found to be inapplicable to the applicant.

____________