Action brought on 13 October 2016 – Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB

(Case T-730/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial Group SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Oliveira and S. Estima Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 31 August 2016 of the European Central Bank (ECB) adopted pursuant to Decision ECB/2004/3 not to provide full access to the ECB decision of 1 August 2014 which suspended Banco Espírito Santo S.A.’s Eurosystem monetary policy counterparty status and obliged it fully to repay its debt to the Eurosystem and refusing full access to related documents or decisions of ECB bodies;

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to the requested information included in Governing Council decisions should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to the requested information included in Governing Council decisions should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the first, second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached the first indent of Article 4(2) of Decision ECB/2004/3.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision refusing access to additional information in the Executive Board’s proposals should be annulled on the grounds that it misinterpreted and thus breached Article 4(3) of Decision ECB/2004/3.

____________