Action brought on 12 February 2015 – NK Rosneft a.o. v Council
(Case T-69/15)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: NK Rosneft OAO (Moscow, Russia); RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO (Moscow); RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO (Yuzhniy Sakhalin, Russia); RN-Exploration OOO (Moscow); and Tagulskoe OOO (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
annul article 1(1) of Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (“the second Amending Decision”), amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP1 ;
annul article 1(3)-(8) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (“the second Amending Regulation”) amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/20142 ;
further or alternatively, annul Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 in so far as they apply to the applicants ; and
order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine principal pleas in law. By these pleas the applicants submit that the Council was not competent to adopt, or, if it had competence, could not lawfully adopt, the Second Amending Measures.
First plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures fail to provide reasons sufficient to permit review of legality and infringe the applicants’ defence rights and rights to effective judicial protection.
Second plea in law, alleging that the aim pursued by the Second Amending Measures is not a legitimate CFSP aim;
Third plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures are in breach of the Union’s international law obligations under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia and/or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Regulation does not disclose a rational connection between the aims of the Decision and the means for giving effect thereto.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Regulation does not give proper effect to the provisions of the Decision in material respects.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures are contrary to the principle of equal treatment and non-arbitrariness.
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures are disproportionate to the aim of the Decision and, in consequence, unduly encroach upon Union legislative competences and entail a disproportionate interference with the Applicants’ fundamental rights.
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures entail a misuse of powers.
Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures offend against the principle of legal certainty owing to the lack of clarity of key terms.
________________________1 OJ L 349, 5/12/2014, p.58
2 OJ L 349, 5/12/2014, p.20