- 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-376/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0376
62016TN0376
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
19.9.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 343/40
(Case T-376/16)
(2016/C 343/53)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Oberösterreichische Landesbank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)
Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which clearly is inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;
—in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;
—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision
2.Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision
3.Third plea in law: insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016
4.Fourth plea in law: illegality of the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017