Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case T-139/19)

(2019/C 139/108)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the contested decision void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, by which the ECB refused to take over direct supervision of the applicant pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) SSMR. (1)

—	order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant pursuant to Articles 134 and 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging an erroneous assumption of the ECB that it no longer has competence for supervision of the applicant following the withdrawal of its licence agreement.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB is obliged to take over supervision as it has to maintain high supervisory standards.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to an effective remedy and of the principle of equality of arms.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging a misuse of power.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging a lack of appropriate reasoning.

8.	Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard.

9.	Ninth plea in law, alleging a violation of the nemo auditor principle.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 concerning specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63.