EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TO0351
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2022.#Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC and Versobank AS v European Central Bank.#Rectification.#Joined Cases T-351/18 REC and T-584/18 REC.
Tribunalens beslut (nionde avdelningen) av den 15 mars 2022.
Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC och Versobank AS mot Europeiska centralbanken.
Förenade målen T-351/18 REC och T-584/18 REC.
Tribunalens beslut (nionde avdelningen) av den 15 mars 2022.
Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC och Versobank AS mot Europeiska centralbanken.
Förenade målen T-351/18 REC och T-584/18 REC.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:151
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
15 March 2022 ( *1 )
(Rectification)
In Cases T‑351/18 and T‑584/18 REC,
Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC, established in Solone (Ukraine),
and
Versobank AS, established in Tallinn (Estonia),
represented by O. Behrends, lawyer,
applicants,
v
European Central Bank (ECB), represented by C. Hernández Saseta and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents, and B. Schneider, lawyer,
defendant,
supported by
European Commission, represented by A. Steiblytė D. Triantafyllou, and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents,
intervener,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of M.J. Costeira, President (Rapporteur), M. Kancheva and T. Perišin, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 |
On 6 October 2021, the General Court delivered a judgment in Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB (T‑351/18 and T‑584/18, EU:T:2021:669). |
2 |
In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, an obvious inaccuracy found in paragraph 219 of that judgment. |
On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber) hereby orders: |
Paragraph 219 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, is to be read as |
‘Thirdly, it should be noted, as observed by the ECB, that the FSA’s findings regarding breaches, which have not been properly challenged by the second applicant, had to be treated by the ECB as established facts and as not requiring, for that reason, a review by the ECB. Thus, the ECB rightly confined itself to verifying whether those breaches did indeed constitute grounds justifying the withdrawal of authorisation. That examination was carried out in paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the decision of 17 July 2018.’ |
instead of as |
‘Thirdly, it should be noted, as observed by the ECB, that the FSA’s findings regarding breaches, which have not been properly challenged by the second applicant, had to be treated by the ECB as established facts and as not requiring, for that reason, a review by the ECB. Thus, the Commission rightly confined itself to verifying whether those breaches did indeed constitute grounds justifying the withdrawal of authorisation. That examination was carried out in paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the decision of 17 July 2018.’. |
Luxembourg, 15 March 2022. E. Coulon Registrar M.J. Costeira President |
( *1 ) Language of the case: English.