Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019CN0552

    Case C-552/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2019 in Case T-283/18: Bernis e.a. v European Central Bank (ECB)

    OJ C 305, 9.9.2019, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.9.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 305/28

    Appeal brought on 17 July 2019 by Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 May 2019 in Case T-283/18: Bernis e.a. v European Central Bank (ECB)

    (Case C-552/19 P)

    (2019/C 305/35)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellants: Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

    Forms of order sought

    The appellants claim that the Court should:

    —

    set aside the order of the General Court of 6 May 2019 in case T-283/18;

    —

    declare that the application for annulment is admissible;

    —

    refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

    —

    order the ECB to pay the appellants' costs and the costs of the appeal.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The appellants put forward two pleas in law in support of their appeal:

    1)

    That the General Court erred in law and violated Art. 263 TFEU by failing to base its order on the decision which the ECB actually adopted.

    2)

    That the order under appeal is based on an incorrect interpretation of Art. 18(1) SRMR (1).

    (1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 225, p. 1).

    Top