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
(Case T-275/19) (*)
(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Powers of the ECB - Investigatory powers - On-site inspections - Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Decision of the ECB to conduct an inspection at the premises of a less significant credit institution - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Competence of the ECB - Obligation to state reasons - Elements capable of justifying an inspection - Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure - Request for a hearing without a statement of reasons)
(2023/C 35/51)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)
Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and V. Hümpfner, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)
By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB), notified by letter of 14 February 2019, to conduct an on-site inspection at the applicant’s premises.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);
3.Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.
(*) Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.