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-494/20: Action brought on 27 July 2020 — Satabank v ECB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0494

62020TN0494

July 27, 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

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

(Case T-494/20)

(2020/C 371/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision dated 15 May 2020 by which the ECB refused to take over direct supervision and give instructions to the Competent Person so as to ensure that the Bank is no longer denied access to its offices, information, systems, files, documents, staff and resources;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed that the requested action is beyond the competence of the ECB and also did not provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligations pursuant to Art. 6(5)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and Article 67 of the Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (2) of the European Central Bank.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle that the ECB has to act in a manner that makes compliance with regulatory obligations possible.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed an abuse of power (détournement de pouvoir).

Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

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