17.10.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/19

—

(Case C-579/22 P)

(2022/C 398/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anglo Austrian AAB AG in liquidation (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 June 2022 in Case T-797/19, Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB,

2.annul the decision of 14 November 2019 by which the ECB withdrew the appellant’s authorisation as a credit institution,

3.in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union, in so far as the Court of Justice considers that it is not in a position to take a decision on the merits,

4.order the ECB to pay the appellant’s costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and infringed EU law in the form of Article 263 TFEU by expressly adjudicating on points of contention relating to the interpretation and application of Austrian national law.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court should have found that the ECB was not competent,

a)since the ECB does not have competence to take decisions under the legal framework on money laundering,

b)since the ECB does not have authority to enforce national law,

c)since the ECB has authority only regarding sanctions for enforcing directly applicable EU law, and

d)since the supervision carried out by the ECB is limited to the combination of deposit taking and credit provision.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court’s finding that the conditions for the application of point 2 of Paragraph 31(3) of the FM-GWG (1) and of Article 67(1)(o) of the CRD IV (2) were met is based on a misinterpretation of the conditions laid down in those provisions and, in addition, on a misinterpretation of the national administrative and judicial decisions relied on by the General Court.

Fourth ground of appeal: the rejection of the pleas in law which are based on the finding that there was a ground for withdrawal of authorisation under Article 67(1)(d) of the CRD IV and which, according to the judgment under appeal, relate to considerations regarding the withdrawal of authorisation that were included merely for the sake of completeness, is vitiated by errors which are the same as the errors addressed in the context of the third ground of appeal.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to examine specifically the second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

Sixth ground of appeal: the rejection of the fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, is based on the legally incorrect finding that only alleged past breaches, and not the circumstances at the time of the withdrawal of authorisation, are relevant.

Seventh ground of appeal: the judgment under appeal is vitiated by procedural defects which adversely affect the appellant’s interests. In particular, the General Court failed to inform the appellant of a fundamental change in its legal position and thereafter to give the appellant an opportunity to comment on the factual and legal elements relevant to that change.

(1) Austrian Federal Law on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing in financial markets.

(2) Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

—

—