Acest document este un extras de pe site-ul EUR-Lex
Document 62019TN0027
Case T-27/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
Case T-27/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
Case T-27/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
OJ C 72, 25.2.2019, p. 47-48
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
25.2.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 72/47 |
Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB
(Case T-27/19)
(2019/C 72/60)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) and Pilatus Holding ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the ECB’s decisions dated 2 November 2018 and send to Pilatus Bank plc. on 5 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the banking license of Pilatus Bank; |
— |
order the Defendant to pay all costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on eleven pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the ECB has failed to assume its responsibilities pursuant to Art. 14(5) of the SSM Regulation. (1) |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed a legal ground for a license withdrawal. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to consider appropriately the discretionary nature of the decision. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to assess the relevant facts and failed to do so impartially and objectively. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle. |
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB erred in law with respect to its considerations in connection with the presumption of innocence. |
8. |
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principal of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner. |
9. |
Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir. |
10. |
Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the Applicants’ right of defence and their right to be heard. |
11. |
Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision. |
(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions.