18.1.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/22

—

(Case C-577/15 P)

(2016/C 016/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SV Capital OÜ (represented by: M. Greinoman, Lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Banking Authority (EBA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgement of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T- 660/14 in part (1) declaring action against Decision C 2013 002 of the EBA inadmissible, (2) annulling Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014 in the part regarding admissibility of the appeal of the appellant and (3) of the costs;

—refer the case back to the General Court;

—order the defendant to bear costs of the appeal and order the intervener to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal against the judgment of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T-660/14 the appellant relies on the following pleas and arguments in law:

The General Court ruled ultra petita;

The General Court infringed Article 60 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU (1) as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely, because it was first ruled on by the Board of Appeal of ESAs;

The General Court infringed Article 48 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (valid until 31 December 2014);

The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of administrative process continuing until 14 July 2014;

The General Court infringed Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of unforeseeable circumstances;

The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU and Articles 60 (1), 61 (1) of Regulation No 1093/2010/EU, as the action against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was admissible both because the decision had been addressed to the appellant and because the appellant had had direct and individual concern in the matter;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by errors of fact;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of discretion;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Article 39 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU and Article 16 of the EBA Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in Decision EBA C 2013 002;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Articles 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of the EBA Internal Rules in Decision EBA C 2013 002;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of power and unreasonable conduct of the EBA.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC OJ L 331, p. 12.

—