EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0045
Case T-45/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — United Kingdom v ECB
Case T-45/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — United Kingdom v ECB
Case T-45/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — United Kingdom v ECB
SL C 98, 31.3.2012, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
31.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 98/24 |
Action brought on 27 January 2012 — United Kingdom v ECB
(Case T-45/12)
2012/C 98/40
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: K. Beal, Barrister and E. Jenkinson, agent)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the European Central Bank’s Statement of Standards published on 18 November 2011, in so far as it sets out a location policy for central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’); and |
— |
Order that the defendant pay the costs of these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the defendant lacked competence to publish the contested act, either at all or alternatively without recourse to the promulgation of a legislative instrument such as a Regulation, adopted either by the Council or alternatively by the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) itself. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act either de jure or de facto will impose a residence requirement on central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’) that wish to undertake clearing or settlement operations in the Euro currency whose daily trades exceed a certain volume. The contested act infringes all or any of Articles 48, 56 and/or 63 TFEU, in that:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested act infringes Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 106 TFEU and Article 13 TEU, since:
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the requirement for CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States to adopt a different corporate personality and domicile amounts to direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. It also offends the general EU principle of equality, since CCPs established in different Member States are subject to disparate treatment without any objective justification for the same. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested act infringes all or any of Articles II, XI, XVI and XVII of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS). |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that without assuming the burden of establishing that a public interest justification for such restrictions is not available (the onus being on the ECB to advance its case for a derogation if it so chooses), the United Kingdom contends that any public policy justification advanced by the ECB would not satisfy the requirement of proportionality, since less restrictive means of ensuring control over financial institutions resident within the Union but outside the Euro area are available. |