Action brought on 30 October 2024 – VTB Bank v ECB

(Case T-568/24)

(C/2025/94)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VTB Bank PAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: G. Müller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

The applicant had not been granted access to the files prior to the decision to revoke the licence. For that reason, it also requests access to the file as part of the court proceedings, as that is the only way it can effectively defend itself against the measure taken to revoke the licence to its detriment. In doing so, it expressly invokes the right to access to the file enshrined in Art. 32 of Regulation (EU) No. 468/2014.

The applicant criticises the two grounds for the decision of the revocation notice referred to by the defendant.

The resolution on the liquidation of OWH SE was already unlawful and the facts of Section 35 (2a) of the Kreditwesengesetz (Law on credit business) (KWG) (2) were not relevant due to such a forced liquidation. The defendant had made a disproportionate decision, as a special exceptional situation had presented itself and, in addition, there was no longer a risk situation due to the effective measures taken by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin).

Furthermore, the defendant misapplied its discretion in invoking Section 35 (2) No. 3 KWG, as the revocation of the licence was no longer necessary due to the measures taken by BaFin. In addition, the revocation of the licence was also not appropriate due to the mandatory temporary nature of the sanction measures, as it was aimed at a permanent cessation of business activities.

The Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR, as the legal predecessor of Russia, had already concluded an investment protection agreement in 1989, which protected the capital investments of investors of the respective other contracting party. The revocation of the licence and the resulting de facto expropriation without compensation violates, among other things, the most-favoured-nation principle contained in that international treaty, as is also contained in the GATS agreement adopted by the EU.

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

(2)  The Kreditwesengesetz in the version published on 9 September 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 2776), last amended by Article 6 of the Law of 22 December 2023 (Federal Law Gazette 2023 I No. 411).