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-71/23: Action brought on 12 February 2023 — ABLV Bank v ECB and SRB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0071

62023TN0071

February 12, 2023
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

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/17

(Case T-71/23)

(2023/C 134/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damage caused to the applicant as a result of the discontinuation of its business and that of its Luxembourg subsidiary;

order the defendants jointly and severally to compensate the applicant for such damage;

determine that the material damage is at least EUR 414 691 000 plus default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full;

order the defendants to bear the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendants’ conduct breached rules of law which were intended to confer rights upon the applicant in a sufficiently serious manner and that the applicant suffered damage as a direct result of those actions.

It is argued that the defendants violated the limits of their powers and interfered with the competence of the national courts by announcing the winding up of the applicant and of its Luxembourg subsidiary under their respective national law;

The applicant maintains that the defendants acted without any legal or substantive basis;

The defendants, according to the applicant, violated their obligations to act lawfully in particular in the event of an external challenge of the legal system of a Member State by a third country.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant sustained a financial loss as a result of the forced termination of its business and that of its Luxembourg subsidiary.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants’ conduct resulted in the forced discontinuation of the business of the applicant and of its Luxembourg subsidiary. The subsequent self-liquidation was an inevitable step to mitigate the damage.

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