- 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-220/22: Action brought on 25 April 2022 — CiviBank v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0220
62022TN0220
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 237/65
(Case T-220/22)
(2022/C 237/85)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Banca di Cividale SpA — Società Benefit (CiviBank) (Cividale del Friuli, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, A. Cassano and A. Cogoni, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) (ECB-SSM-2022-IT-7 (QLF-2021-0155)) of 23 March 2022 (contained in a single act or in several acts) by which the ECB authorised Banca Sparkasse and Fondazione Sparkasse to: (i) acquire and maintain a shareholding higher than 10 % of the share capital and voting rights of CiviBank; (ii) exceed that shareholding and acquire directly a controlling shareholding in CiviBank, following, and as a result of, the public global voluntary tender offers launched on the market on 9 December 2021 under Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) of 15 October 2013, Articles 19, 22, 53 and 67 of the Consolidated Banking Law and its related implementing rules.
—order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 23 of Directive 2013/36, infringement of Article 86 of Regulation 468/2014 and of Article 49 TFEU and breach of the general principle of EU law of non-discrimination in assessing the suitability of the purchaser.
2.Second plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision and resulting infringement of Article 296 TFEU, of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the corresponding general legal principles which can be inferred from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
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).