C_2019246EN.01003101.xml
22.7.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 246/31 |
Action brought on 14 May 2019 — PNB Banka
and Others v ECB
(Case T-301/19)
(2019/C 246/33)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: PNB Banka AS
(Riga, Latvia), CR (*1), CT (*1) (represented by: O. Behrends and M.
Kirchner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central
Bank
Form of order
sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the ECB’s decision of 1 March 2019 to classify
PNB Banka as a significant entity; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the
costs. |
Pleas in law and
main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on ten pleas
in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the ECB incorrectly
assumed that Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation (1) envisages a classification
decision.
— |
The applicants submit that Article 6(5)(b) of
the SSM Regulation merely authorises the ECB to exercise itself all
the relevant powers of a national competent authority. Article
39(5), second sentence, of the SSM Framework Regulation (2) cannot change the nature
of the decision pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation.
Were the Court to conclude that Article 39(5), second sentence, of
the SSM Framework Regulation changes the nature of that decision,
the applicants plead the illegality of the said Article 39(5),
second sentence. | |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that that the ECB based
its decision on incorrect assumptions as to the conditions and purpose of
Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation and, inter alia, failed to take into
account the exceptional nature of a decision pursuant to that
provision. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to
examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of
the individual case in order to determine the necessity of a decision
pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated
several essential procedural requirements. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to
exercise its discretion pursuant to Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM
Regulation. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the
principle of proportionality. |
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated
the nemo auditor
principle. |
8. |
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated
the principle of equal treatment. |
9. |
Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the
principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
— |
The applicants submit that the decision is
unclear and therefore creates legal uncertainty and is contrary to
the legitimate expectations of PNB Banka based on its prior
interactions with the ECB and the Financial and Capital Markets
Commission. | |
10. |
Tenth plea in law, alleging that that the ECB
violated Article 19 of the SSM Regulation and recital 75 of its preamble
and committed a détournement de
pouvoir. |
(*1) Information erased or replaced within
the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013
of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank
concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit
institutions (OJ
2013 L 287, p. 63).
(2) Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the
European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for
cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central
Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities
(ECB/2014/17) (OJ
2014 L 141, p. 1).