- 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 C-669/17 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2017 by Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2017 in Case T-247/16: Trasta Komercbanka AS and Others v European Central Bank
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0669
62017CN0669
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
5.2.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 42/8
—
(Case C-669/17 P)
(2018/C 042/11)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA (represented by: O.H. Behrends, L. Feddern, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
—set aside no. 1 of the order, i.e. the decision by the General Court that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment of Trasta Komercbanka AS (TKB);
—declare that the action for annulment of TKB is not devoid of purpose;
—declare that the action for annulment is admissible;
—refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment, and
—order the European Central Bank (ECB) to pay the appellants’ costs and the costs of the appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the first ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in assuming that TKB’s remedy is entrusted to the liquidator. The appellants claim that this assumption is irreconcilable with Art. 263 TFEU and the guarantee of an effective remedy as well as a number of related principles.
By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in assuming that the shareholders’ action is a substitute for the shareholders’ ability to defend TKB’s license through an action by TKB itself.
By the third ground of appeal, the appellants claim a number of further substantive errors including a failure to apply the nemo auditur-principle because of the ECB’s interference with TKB’s remedy.
By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court failed to take into account the requirements (including form requirements) for a valid revocation of the power of attorney originally issued by TKB.
By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erroneously applied Art. 51(1) rather than Art. 131 of the Rules of Procedure as well as a number of further procedural errors.
—