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 62016TN0645

    Case T-645/16: Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

    IO C 402, 31.10.2016, p. 55–56 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    07/09/2016
    Date lodged:
    07/09/2016
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Gearmáinis
    Type of procedure:
    Iarratas ar bhearta eatramhacha, Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú

    31.10.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 402/55

    Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

    (Case T-645/16)

    (2016/C 402/65)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

    Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board, apparently of 15 April 2016, at least in so far as that decision concerns the applicant;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decision.

    2.

    Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision.
    Top