4.7.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 243/39 |
Action brought on 5 May 2016 — Lukash v Council
(Case T-210/16)
(2016/C 243/43)
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:
|
— |
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.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of defence and of the right to an effective remedy. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
3. |
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. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of fact by the Council. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging a clear breach of the applicant’s right to property. |