- 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-27/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0027
62019TN0027
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
25.2.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 72/47
(Case T-27/19)
(2019/C 72/60)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) and Pilatus Holding ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the ECB’s decisions dated 2 November 2018 and send to Pilatus Bank plc. on 5 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the banking license of Pilatus Bank;
—order the Defendant to pay all costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on eleven pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the ECB has failed to assume its responsibilities pursuant to Art. 14(5) of the SSM Regulation. (1)
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed a legal ground for a license withdrawal.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to consider appropriately the discretionary nature of the decision.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to assess the relevant facts and failed to do so impartially and objectively.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB erred in law with respect to its considerations in connection with the presumption of innocence.
8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principal of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner.
9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.
10.Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the Applicants’ right of defence and their right to be heard.
11.Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision.
*
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.