- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-730/19: Action brought on 25 October 2019 – PNB Banka and Others v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0730
62019TN0730
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
27.1.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 27/35
—
(Case T-730/19)
(2020/C 27/44)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 10 other applicants (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the ECB’s decision of 15 August 2019 that Bank X is failing or likely to fail; and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on thirteen pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the ECB lacked the competence to adopt the contested decision.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is an impermissible type of decision.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB distorted the facts and violated its obligation to assess impartially and objectively all the relevant facts.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated procedurally because it is based on an illegal on-site inspection.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of proportionality.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not include an appropriate statement of reasons.
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicants’ rights to be heard.
8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that that the contested decision is based on the ECB’s illegal opposition to the acquisition of Bank X.
9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment.
10.Tenth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
11.Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the nemo auditur principle.
12.Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated procedurally because the ECB failed to take appropriate steps to eliminate the influence of officials with a conflict of interest.
13.Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed a détournement de pouvoir.
—