- 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 C-74/24 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2024 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2023 in Case T-732/19, PNB Banka and Others v SRB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0074
62024CN0074
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
C series
—
C/2024/3054
13.5.2024
(Case C-74/24 P)
(C/2024/3054)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB), Republic of Latvia, European Central Bank, HG, HH, HI, HJ, HL, HM, HN, HO
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal;
—declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the SRB’s Decision SRB/EES/2019/131 of 15 August 2019 not to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of the credit institution PNB Banka AS (‘the contested decision’);
—to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance refer the case back to the General Court; and
—order the SRB to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the General Court committed a breach of procedure by failing to deal appropriately with the unlawful interference with the effective representation of the appellant.
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court provided an insufficient statement of reasoning by failing to describe the modification of the appellant’s legal position by the contested decision, which the General Court assumed contrary to the position of the SRB.
Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court committed various errors with respect to the appellant’s right to be heard.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court failed to acknowledge the ultra vires nature of the SRB’s decision in the present case by failing to acknowledge that the SRB does not have the competence pursuant to Article 18 SRMR (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation) to adopt any decision with external effect, especially also in the case where the resolution conditions are not met.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3054/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—