1.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/29

—

annul the decision of the EBA dated 21 February 2014 No EBA C 2013 002 in its entirety;

—

set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities No BoA 2014-CI-02 in the part dismissing the appeal;

—

remit the case to the competent body of the EBA to review the complaint by SV Capital OÜ dated 24 October 2012 (as supplemented) as to its substance;

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court including costs incurred in enforcing a judgment or order of the General Court.

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of fact as the contested decision No EBA C 2013 002 stated that ‘neither Ms [RR] nor Mr [OP] were heads of the branch of Nordea Bank Finland or key function holders in the meaning of the EBA Suitability Guidelines’ even though the Board of Appeal accepted the applicant’s evidence to the contrary.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to exercise discretion since it did not take into account the fact i) that Nordea is on the Financial Stability Board list of 29 global systematically important financial institution, ii) that it is a financial conglomerate, iii) that its Estonian branch is a substantial branch and iv) that the alleged violations are of gross nature.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) of the EBA Regulation (1) and Article 16 of the EBA Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (2) as the applicant was not given an opportunity to express its views on the defendant’s reasoning and statements of facts before the contested decision EBA C 2013 002 was taken since the defendant did not advise the applicant of its intention not to start the requested investigation of Nordea Bank Finland and did not provide reasons therefore.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3(3), (4) and (5) of the EBA Internal Rules (3) as the EBA’s Alternate Chairperson was not informed on the basis of anonymised information about the intended decision not to initiate an investigation.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of power and unreasonable conduct of the EBA as the defendant was biased and, taking into account the amount of time and effort spent by the defendant on the complaint and its admissibility, there was no reason to abandon the case without making a reasoned decision as to its merits.