- 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-100/23: Action brought on 20 February 2023 — ABLV Bank v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0100
62023TN0100
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
15.5.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 173/30
(Case T-100/23)
(2023/C 173/41)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the ECB’s decision dated 8 December 2022 with respect to the applicant by which the ECB rejected the applicant’s request for access to ECB documents pursuant to the rules governing public access to documents;
—order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the list of documents provided by the defendant in the contested decision was manifestly incomplete.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB illegitimately referred the applicant to the website of the authorities of a third country instead of disclosing the relevant document held by itself.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant illegally denied access to seven documents.
—The applicant claims that the defendant failed to provide specific grounds for the denial of access with respect to each document, that the defendant incorrectly interpreted and applied the concept of ‘information which is protected as such under Union law’, pursuant to Article 4(1)(c) of the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents, (1) that the ECB incorrectly interpreted and applied the commercial interest exception under the first indent of Article 4(2) of the said ECB decision, that the ECB failed to consider the public interest in disclosure and that the ECB incorrectly relied on, and failed to provide adequate reasons in relation to, the protection of documents for internal use or preliminary consultations with the relevant national authorities, pursuant to Article 4(3) of the said ECB decision.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide access to the file.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant illegitimately and without any legal basis discontinued the processing of part of the request for access.
*
Decision 2004/258/EC (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).