Action brought on 24 November 2023 – Pumpyanskaya v Council

(Case T-1108/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Galina Evgenyevna Pumpyanskaya (Ekaterinburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Lansky, P. Goeth, A. Egger and E. Steiner, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks:

–    the inapplicability of Article 2(1)(f) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 (OJ L 50/1), and of Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2014/145, as amended by Council Decision (CSFP) 2023/1094 of 5 June 2023 (OJ L 146/20), concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, and of Article 3(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 (OJ L 51/1) and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1089 of 5 June 2023 (OJ L 146/1) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine;

–    either in combination with (1) above or alternatively, the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 of 13 September 2023 amending Council Decision (CFSP) 2014/145 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 226/104), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 of 13 September 2023 implementing Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ L 226/3) (“Contested acts”);

–    and in combination with (1) above or (2) above, order the Council to pay the costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights of the defence.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has acted unlawfully when promulgating the Contested Acts, in that the Council has committed an error of assessment in respect of the applicant.

Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation unlawfully infringes on certain of the applicant’s rights protected under the Charter of Fundaments Rights.

____________