This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0809
Case T-809/16: Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
Case T-809/16: Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
Case T-809/16: Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
OJ C 30, 30.1.2017, p. 49–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
30.1.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 30/49 |
Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
(Case T-809/16)
(2017/C 030/56)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, 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 Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016 (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06)’), as well as the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13 of 20 May 2016 (‘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 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’), at least in so far as those decisions concern the applicant; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
— |
First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decisions. |
— |
Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decisions. |