Action brought on 24 November 2023 – Moshkovich v Council

(Case T-1109/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vadim Nikolaevich Moshkovich (Tambov, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, L. Burguin, 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) 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 ¹ ; 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 ¹ ; and

the decision to maintain Mr. Vadim Nikolaevich Moshkovich on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures under Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767, and Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765, adopted by the Council of the European Union by letter of 15 September 2023 (all together the “Contested Acts”), in so far as they include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

Order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 of the TFUE and of Article 41 (2) (c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - breach of the right to effective judicial protection, and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an amended listing criterion to the applicant, and, as a subordinate plea, that the amended listing criterion in question is illegal.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality and of the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct business.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental principle of non-discrimination.

____________

¹ OJ 2023, L 226, p. 104.

¹ OJ 2023, L 226, p. 3.