- 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-275/19: Action brought on 24 April 2019 — PNB Banka and Others v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0275
62019TN0275
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 213/69
(Case T-275/19)
(2019/C 213/67)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia), CR (represented by: O. Behrends, and M. Kirchner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the ECB’s decision of 14 February 2019 to conduct an on-site inspection on the premises of PNB Banka AS and its group companies;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on ten pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the ECB was not the competent supervisory authority with respect to PNB Banka AS at the time of the decision to conduct the on-site inspection.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the SSM Regulation. (1)
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to duly exercise its discretion pursuant to Article 12(1) of the SSM Regulation.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicants’ rights to be heard.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligation to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for its decision.
8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner with respect to the applicants.
10.Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 of and recital 75 to the preamble of the SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.
Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
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).