This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0377
Case T-377/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
Case T-377/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
Case T-377/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
OJ C 343, 19.9.2016, p. 41–41
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
19.9.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 343/41 |
Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
(Case T-377/16)
(2016/C 343/54)
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 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 of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’, as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which is clearly inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016; |
— |
in the alternative, annul the ‘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 of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:
1. |
First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 is unlawful. |