Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev v Council of the European Union (T-262/15)

Judgment of 15 Jun 2017

law://eu/cjeu/2015/t-262-15/para_153@2026-11-14

153Thirdly, for the sake of completeness, it must be recalled that, before an infringement of the rights of the defence can result in the annulment of an act, it must be demonstrated that, had it not been for that irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different. In the present case, the applicant has not explained what arguments and evidence he could have relied on if he had received the documents in question earlier, nor has he demonstrated that such arguments and evidence could have led to a different result in his case, that is to say, to the restrictive measures at issue not being renewed (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 18 September 2014, Georgias and Others v Council and Commission, T‑168/12, EU:T:2014:781, paragraphs 106 to 108 and the case-law cited). Accordingly, the present plea in law could not, in any event, have led to the annulment of the contested measures.

Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev v Council of the European Union (T-262/15)

History · 1 version

Key facts

Connections