Action brought on 5 May 2016 — Lukash v Council

(Case T-210/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olena Lukash (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare Ms Olena Lukash’s action to be admissible;

annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

annul the subsequent decisions and regulations extending the restrictive measures laid down by Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and updating the grounds, namely:

Council Decision 2015/364/CFSP of 5 March 2015;

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015;

Council Decision 2015/876/CFSP of 5 June 2015;

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/869 of 5 June 2015;

Council Decision 2016/318/CFSP of 4 March 2016;

Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 4 March 2016;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defence and of the right to an effective remedy.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the criteria set out in Article 1 of Decision 2014/119/CFSP, reiterated in recital 4 of Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, in recital 3 of Decision 2015/364/CFSP, reiterated in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/357, in recital 4 of Decision 2015/876/CFSP, reiterated in recital 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/357, and in recital 4 of Decision 2016/318/CFSP, reiterated in recital 2 of Regulation (EU) 2015/357.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact by the Council.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a clear breach of the applicant’s right to property.

____________