Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/7362

16.12.2024

(Case T-532/24)

(C/2024/7362)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Banque Havilland SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the ECB’s decision ECB-SSM-2024-LU-5 WHD-2023-0005, dated 1 August 2024, withdrawing the applicant’s authorisation as a credit institution (‘the contested decision’), void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU; and

—order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

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 contested decision is ultra vires or, alternatively, breaches substantive European Union law because:

—it violates the applicant’s rights to have its affairs, pursuant to national law, handled by the competent national authorities, subject to judicial review by the national courts;

—it comprises non-prudential matters;

—it illegitimately treats the Bank’s ultimate beneficial owner as a bank under supervision;

—it constitutes a de facto sanction as opposed to a measure designed to ensure compliance; and

—it is based on provisions of the Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank (2) which are illegal (including especially Article 4 and Article 14 of Regulation No 1024/2013). These provisions are illegal because they go beyond the limited scope of Article 127(6) TFEU and breach fundamental principles of Union law regarding the application of national law.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is procedurally illegal because the ECB and the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier avoided any formal license withdrawal procedure and the involvement of the applicant in such procedure until the fact-gathering and decision-making process was completed for all practical intents and purposes. In this context, the applicant also pleads the illegality of Article 31(3), last sentence, of Regulation No 468/2014, on the grounds that the short deadline pursuant to this provision is disproportionate.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is substantively illegal because it is based on an assessment of an extremely limited part of the applicant’s business, because it assumes a number of non-existing obligations under national law and is not sufficiently substantiated as regards any further grounds for a license withdrawal. In that context the applicant alleges:

—the illegality of the grounds of the contested decision, which are contrary to national law, as well as EU law;

—a violation of the principle of proportionality;

—the abuse by the defendant of its regulatory power, within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU;

—a breach of legitimate expectations;

—a breach of the principle of ne bis in idem;

—a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

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) (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7362/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: English

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15