- 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-667/21: Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0667
62021TN0667
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
13.12.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 502/38
(Case T-667/21)
(2021/C 502/57)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Wien, Austria) (represented by: H. Bälz and D. Bliesener, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s decision of 2 August 2021 (1); and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant is incompetent to impose absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) of the Austrian Banking Act (‘BWG’).
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the imposition of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG is time barred.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant did not breach the large exposure limit provided in Art. 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 375/2013 (2).
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to be heard.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly calculated the amount of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG.
(1) No SSM- 2021-ATBAW-7_ESA-2018-0000126.
(2) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1-337).