Communication: new case No. 0075 of 2022

IDENTIFIER
62022TN0075
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
General Court
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
1
REFERENCED
0
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: new case

Judgment



4.4.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/35


Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Prigozhin v Council

(Case T-75/22)

(2022/C 148/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the action of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin admissible and

in so far as they concern the applicant

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 of 13 December 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses;

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 of 13 December 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses

in so far as those two decisions name him as the financier of the Wagner Group;

declare that in any event the name of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin should be immediately withdrawn from the contested measures;

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to 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 four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that the Council failed to comply with the duty to state reasons for the contested measures by not adducing any specific evidence justifying the reference to the applicant’s name in the body of the contested decisions.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. The applicant submits, in that regard, that in the absence of evidence to support his description as ‘financier of the Wagner Group’, the Council could not name him indirectly in the statement of reasons for the listing of the Wagner Group and thus distort the objective initially pursued by the measure.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant maintains that he is not the financier of the Wagner Group and that there is no connection between him and that entity.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of fundamental rights. The applicant claims that by listing his name in the body of the statement of reasons for the listing of the Wagner Group, the Council violated Articles 10, 6 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.