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 62021TN0667

    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).

    Top