- 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-551/23: Action brought on 1 September 2023 — Baltic International Bank v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0551
62023TN0551
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
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
Series C
C/2023/148
16.10.2023
(Case T-551/23)
(C/2023/148)
Language of the case: Latvian
Parties
Applicant: Baltic International Bank, SE (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Supe and V. Supe, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Decision ECB-SSM-2023-LV-2 WHD-2022-0014 of the European Central Bank of 3 July 2023 on the withdrawal of the supervisited entity’s authorisation as a credit instititution;
—order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by Baltic International Bank SE.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank erred in its assessment by not taking account of the fact that the Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (Financial and Capital Markets Commission) has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 196(4) of the Latvijas Republikas Kredītiestāžu likums (Law on Credit Institutions of the Republic of Latvia) to issue regulations that establish the criteria for significant infringements of provisions in the field of the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism proliferation.
2.Second plea in law, founded on the obligation to carry out a careful and impartial assessment of all the aspects of the case.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, which corresponds to the right set out in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and which safeguards the right to an effective remedy set out in Article 47 of the Charter.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, which corresponds to the right to be heard set out in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter and a person’s right to have access to his or her file under Article 41(2)(b) thereof, and which safeguards the right to an effective remedy set out in Article 47 of the Charter.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/148/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)