Action brought on 12 March 2024 – AlfaStrakhovanie v Council

(Case T-150/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AlfaStrakhovanie (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Genko, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 ¹ of 17 March 2014, as amended on 18 December 2023 by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2875 ² in so far as it concerns the applicant, by adding it to the list of sanctioned entities under number 270;

annul Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP ¹ of 17 March 2014, as amended on 18 December 2023 by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/2871 ² in so far as it concerns the applicant and adds it to the list of sanctioned entities under number 270;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, on the ground that the Council did not give any individual, specific and concrete reason capable of enabling the applicant to be classified according to the criteria which were applied to it.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, on the ground that the statement of reasons contains erroneous claims and that the evidence file does not prove facts justifying the inclusion of the applicant on a list of sanctioned persons.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights, including the right to property and the freedom to conduct a business, as well as the principle of proportionality due to the disproportionate impact on third parties and the inability of the sanctions to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 269/2014.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination due to the disproportionate impact on third parties and the inability to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 269/2014.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the possibility of adopting alternative measures less onerous than the measures at issue.

Sixth plea in law, based on an incidental plea of illegality of the criterion laid down in Article 3(1)(f) of Regulation No 269/2014, on account of the lack of a sufficient link between the criterion and the objective pursued and on account of an infringement of the fundamental principles of the European Union and in particular the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of formal requirements, due to the Council’s inability to identify correctly persons subject to restrictive measures.

____________

¹ Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

¹ Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2875 of 18 December 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 (OJ L 2023/2875).

¹ Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16).

¹ Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/2871 of 18 December 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 2023/2871).