This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0667
Case T-667/21: Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB
Case T-667/21: Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB
Case T-667/21: Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB
OJ C 502, 13.12.2021, p. 38–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
13.12.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 502/38 |
Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB
(Case T-667/21)
(2021/C 502/57)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Wien, Austria) (represented by: H. Bälz and D. Bliesener, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the defendant’s decision of 2 August 2021 (1); and |
— |
order the defendant to pay 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 defendant is incompetent to impose absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) of the Austrian Banking Act (‘BWG’). |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the imposition of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG is time barred. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant did not breach the large exposure limit provided in Art. 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 375/2013 (2). |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to be heard. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly calculated the amount of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG. |
(1) No SSM- 2021-ATBAW-7_ESA-2018-0000126.
(2) Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1-337).