25.7.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/50

Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Stavytskyi v Council

(Case T-242/16)

(2016/C 270/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, insofar as these acts retain the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to restrictive measures;

—

order the council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the listing suffers from illegality as it has been amended to allow for listing on the basis merely of being subject to criminal proceedings, without any requirement of judicial endorsement.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council gave an insufficient and stereotypical statement of reasons, as it merely copied the text found in the listing legislation.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment as it did not have sufficiently solid factual basis for listing the applicant on the ground that he was subject to criminal proceeding by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public funds or assets.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the measures taken by the Council do not, in relation to the applicant, constitute foreign policy measures, but instead constitute international cooperation in criminal proceedings, which accordingly have been adopted on an incorrect legal basis.