EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-431/20: Action brought on 9 July 2020 — UniCredit Bank v SRB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0431

62020TN0431

July 9, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/61

(Case T-431/20)

(2020/C 279/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit Bank AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Schäfer, H. Großerichter and F. Kruis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including annexes, in so far as they concern the applicant;

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas:

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration, since the contested decision and Annexes I and II thereto did not contain an adequate statement of reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, since the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the contested decision, which contains an individual measure adversely affecting the applicant.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter, since it is in practice impossible to carry out an effective judicial review of the accuracy of the decision’s content.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia