Action brought on 24 November 2023 – Khudaverdyan v Council

(Case T-1116/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tigran Khudaverdyan (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, F. Bélot, A. Guillerme and M. Brésart, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare unlawful the listing criterion laid down in Articles 1(1)(e) and 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as amended, respectively, by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1089 of 5 June 2023 amending 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 refers to leading businesspersons operating in Russia or businesspersons, legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine;

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 maintains the applicant’s name in the annex thereto while altering the grounds for his listing, and

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 maintains the applicant’s name in the annex thereto while altering the grounds for his listing;

order the Council to pay EUR 100 000 on a provisional basis in respect of the 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 five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-1105/23, Abramovich v Council.

____________