Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/921

17.2.2025

(Case T-633/24)

(C/2025/921)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nemea Bank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: A. Meriläinen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare that the defendant is liable for the damage to the applicant as a result of the conduct in the ‘preparatory acts’ as well as a result of the subsequent withdrawal of its authorisation immediately causing the forced discontinuation of its business and the loss of its value;

—order the defendant to compensate the applicant for such damage;

—determine that the material damage to achieve restitutio in integrum is primo at least EUR 1 billion, representing damnum emergens as the value of applicant’s shares without ECB action ‘today’, or, secondo, at least EUR 100 million representing damnum emergens as the value of applicant’s equity before ECB action, or, tertio, at least EUR 16 825 931 / 22 593 547 representing damnum emergens as the book equity lost due to ECB action / damnum emergens with lucrum cessans as the book equity lost plus lost profits due to ECB action, plus default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full;

—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 three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s conduct breached rules of law which were intended to confer rights upon the applicant in a sufficiently serious manner and that the applicant suffered damage as a direct result of those actions.

—It is argued that the defendant violated the limits of its powers;

—The applicant maintains that the defendant acted without any legal or substantive basis;

—The defendant, according to the applicant, violated its obligations to act lawfully.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant sustained a financial loss as a result of the withdrawal of its authorisation immediately causing the forced termination of its business.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s illegal conduct resulted in the license withdrawal that immediately prompted forced discontinuation of the business of the applicant and the collapse of its value.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/921/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—