This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TN0050
Case T-50/20: Action brought on 29 January 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
Case T-50/20: Action brought on 29 January 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
Case T-50/20: Action brought on 29 January 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
OJ C 114, 6.4.2020, p. 11–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 29/01/2020
- Date lodged:
- 29/01/2020
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment
|
6.4.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 114/11 |
Action brought on 29 January 2020 — PNB Banka v ECB
(Case T-50/20)
(2020/C 114/10)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)
Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the ECB’s decision of 19 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to comply with the request to instruct the administrator of PNB Banka to grant access to the bank, its information, staff and resources; |
|
— |
order the defendant to bear 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 ECB erroneously assumed that the requested instruction is outside its competences. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an effective remedy. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the bank’s right to be heard. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the bank’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision. |
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle because the appointment of the administrator and the interference with the representation of the Bank by its Board as its lawful representative is due to wrongful conduct by the ECB. |
