Action brought on 27 June 2012 - CD v Council of the European Union

(Case T-646/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CD (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

annul Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

annul the Council's decision of 11 November 2011 by which it refused to remove the applicant's name from Annex III A to Council Decision 2011/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, as amended by Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011;

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 an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the rights of defence, on the ground that the contested measures do not allow the applicant to challenge their validity before the Court and the Court to exercise its power of review of their lawfulness.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of personal liability, on the ground that the contested measures provide for liability and sanctions without establishing the applicant's personal liability in the facts justifying the sanctions.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis, on the ground that the contested measures do not establish the existence of a positive legal rule which was infringed by the applicant.

4.    Fourth plea in law, alleging error of assessment, on the ground that the contested measures lack any justification based on the facts.

5.    Fifth plea in law, alleging lack of compliance with the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the applicant's personal involvement in the collective decision for which sanctions were imposed is not proportionate to that sanction.

____________