EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0663
Case C-663/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2017 by European Central Bank against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12/09/2017 in Case T-247/16: Fursin and others v European Central Bank
Case C-663/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2017 by European Central Bank against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12/09/2017 in Case T-247/16: Fursin and others v European Central Bank
Case C-663/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2017 by European Central Bank against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12/09/2017 in Case T-247/16: Fursin and others v European Central Bank
OJ C 32, 29.1.2018, p. 16–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.1.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 32/16 |
Appeal brought on 24 November 2017 by European Central Bank against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12/09/2017 in Case T-247/16: Fursin and others v European Central Bank
(Case C-663/17 P)
(2018/C 032/23)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou and C. Hernández Saseta, Agents, B. Schneider, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: Trasta Komercbanka AS, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(i) |
annul the appealed order insofar as it holds that the shareholder applicants had an interest and legal standing in the General Court regarding the action for annulment of the contested decision (operative point 2 of the appealed order); |
(ii) |
give a final decision on the substance and dismiss the action brought by the shareholder applicants as inadmissible; and |
(iii) |
order the Applicants to bear the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the shareholder applicants (i.e. the shareholders of Trasta Komercbanka, as opposed to Trasta Komercbanka itself) had no interest in bringing an application for annulment that is separate from the legal interest of Trasta Komercbanka. The first plea in law is based on the following Arguments:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the shareholder applicants had no locus standi, given that the contested decision was not of individual concern to them. The second plea in law is based on the following Arguments:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the shareholder applicants had no locus standi, given that the contested decision was not of direct concern to them. The third plea in law is based on the following Arguments:
|