EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023TN0067
Case T-67/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — UH v ECB
Case T-67/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — UH v ECB
Case T-67/23: Action brought on 13 February 2023 — UH v ECB
OJ C 164, 8.5.2023, p. 43–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.5.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 164/43 |
Action brought on 13 February 2023 — UH v ECB
(Case T-67/23)
(2023/C 164/60)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: UH (represented by: M. Burianski, R. Janjuah and W. Häring, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the defendant’s decision of 13 December 2022 withdrawing the applicant’s authorisation as a credit institution (ECB-SSM-2022-DE-22 WHD-2022-0001); |
— |
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 formal illegality of the decision The operative part of the ECB’s decision is based on different legal bases than those set out in the statement of reasons. There is thus an infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to Paragraph 39 of the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (Law on administrative procedure), Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard The ECB failed to take into account the applicant’s observations in the context of the consultation procedure. This constitutes an infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging failure to satisfy the conditions for application of Paragraph 35(2)(4)(a) of the Kreditwesengesetz (Law on the activities of credit institutions) The conditions for application laid down in Paragraph 35(2)(4)(a) of the Kreditwesengesetz relied on as the legal basis for the statement of reasons of the ECB’s decision have not been satisfied. Moreover, the presumption provided for in that legal basis does not exist or has been rebutted. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to satisfy the conditions for application of Paragraph 35(2)(6) of the Kreditwesengesetz The conditions for application laid down in Paragraph 35(2)(6) of the Kreditwesengesetz relied on as the legal basis for the statement of reasons of the ECB’s decision have not been satisfied. The ECB fails to take into account the dynamic definition of own funds of that legal basis. Furthermore, a reference to the increase in own funds requirements by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) constitutes an infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging error of assessment and misuse of powers by the ECB
|