Action brought on 29 April 2022 – Russian Direct Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-235/22)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Russian Direct Investment Fund (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: K. Scordis and A. Gavrielides, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
pursuant to Article 263 TFEU annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022 amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine 1 (the Contested Decision); and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine 2 (the Contested Regulation; together, the Contested Acts), in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant;
alternatively, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare that paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 4b of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (as amended) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2e of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (as amended) are inapplicable and/or void in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and annul the Contested Decision and the Contested Regulation in so far as they name or concern or apply to the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging absence of a “sufficiently solid factual basis” for imposing the restrictive measures concerning the applicant.
The Council manifestly failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the decision to impose the restrictive measures imposed with respect to the applicant or engagement with or co-operation with the applicant was taken on “a sufficiently solid factual basis”.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights of defence and effective judicial protection.
In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection in that:
the Contested Acts were adopted without notifying the applicant, either prior to the adoption of the Contested Acts or within a reasonable time thereafter;
the applicant was never provided with even a summary of reasons for the adoption of the Contested Acts (to the extent that they concern or apply to the applicant);
the defendant never disclosed to the applicant the evidence relied on as the basis of its decision to adopt the Contested Acts and never gave the applicant the opportunity to make comments and defend its rights.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement in the form of disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business.
In adopting the Contested Acts, the Council infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to conduct a business in that:
the Contested Acts significantly restrict the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business;
the Contested Acts impair the essence of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
the Council’s failure to comply with its legal obligations (including its obligation to give reasons and disclose the evidence on which the Contested Acts were based) makes it impossible for the Court to assess and determine whether the relevant restrictive measures are (a) necessary and genuinely meet the pursued objectives of general interest; and (b) proportionate to the objective pursued;
in any event the restrictive measures in question are not necessary and do not genuinely meet the pursued objective as the applicant’s activities and the projects co-financed by the applicant do not contribute to the “military aggression against Ukraine” or finance, enable or assist the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine.
____________
1 OJ 2022 L 63, p. 5.
1 OJ 2022 L 63, p. 1.