Action brought on 19 April 2024 – Cortex Havacilik ve Turizm Ticaret v Commission

(Case T-213/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cortex Havacilik ve Turizm Ticaret AŞ (Kepez, Türkiye) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard, B. Maniatis and E. Zachari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission’s decision by which the aircraft operated by the applicant were made subject to a landing, take off, and overflight ban pursuant to Articles 3d and 12 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014,¹ as amended, as well as Articles 4e(1) and 8 of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014;²

order the Commission to bear the costs of these 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 that the Commission violated, misinterpreted, and misapplied Article 3d(1) of Regulation 833/2014 and Article 4e(1) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP in imposing the flight ban on the applicant. First, the contested decision lacks any factual basis. Second, the contested decision lacks any legal basis. Moreover, it is impossible to rely, concurrently, on Article 3d(1) and Article 12 of Regulation 833/2014, given the different nature of these provisions.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated, misinterpreted, and misapplied Article 12 of Regulation 833/2014 and Article 4e(1) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP in imposing the flight ban on the applicant. First, there is no legal basis under this provision for the Commission to decide on a flight ban. Second, the applicant did not violate Article 12. Third, it is legally impossible to rely on Article 12 and Article 3d(1) concurrently.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the rights of defence of the applicant, in particular the right to be heard, the right to an effective remedy, the presumption of innocence, and the right to good administration by failing to communicate to the applicant any reasons or evidence underlying the contested decision and by refusing to afford the applicant any meaningful opportunity to be heard in relation to the flight ban.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s fundamental rights, notably the freedom to conduct a business and the right to respect for reputation, as well as the principle of proportionality by imposing a flight ban on the applicant without a (substantiated) legal basis and without affording the applicant any procedural guarantees.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission seems to have overstepped the powers conferred to it by adopting the contested decision. The Commission acted without a legal basis, in breach of the principle of legal certainty and outside the limits of its competences, thus also in breach of the principles of conferral and subsidiarity enshrined in the TEU.

____________

¹ Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1).

¹ Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13).