Action brought on 30 August 2022 – Belaruskali v Council

(Case T-528/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belaruskali AAT (Soligorsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Ostrovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/881 of 3 June 2022 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine ¹ insofar as it concerns the applicant;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/876 of 3 June 2022 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine ¹ , insofar as it concerns the applicant (together, the “Contested Acts”); and

order the Council pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legality.

The Contested Acts insofar as they concern the applicant are in breach of fundamental human rights.

The Contested Acts, insofar as they concern the applicant, are in breach of international treaties.

The Contested Acts are in breach of the objectives set forth by the European Union’s legal foundations.

The Contested Acts, insofar as they concern the applicant, violate the principle requiring the measures to be targeted – they affect the civilian population not only in Belarus, but throughout the world.

The Contested Acts violate the principle of legal certainty. The reasons for listing of the applicant contain a number of terms, which are defined neither in the Contested Acts nor in jurisprudence. In view of this, their meaning is not clear to the applicant, and it cannot unambiguously understand them and decide how to act in the context of the measures taken against it by the Council.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.

The Council failed to demonstrate the manner in which the applicant benefits from or supports the Lukashenka regime. Therefore, the Council failed to prove that the applicant benefits from or supports the Lukashenka regime.

The Council failed to demonstrate the manner in which the applicant is responsible for the repression of civil society. Therefore, the Council failed to prove that the applicant is responsible for the repression of civil society.

Most of the evidence adduced by the Council are unreliable, inaccurate or not related to the applicant or the reasons for listing.

Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of non-discrimination.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of proportionality.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of the obligation to state reasons.

____________

¹ OJ 2022, L 153, p. 77.

¹ OJ 2022, L 153, p. 1.