Action brought on 27 September 2018 – Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB
(Case T-584/18)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC (Solone, Ukraine) and Versobank AS (Talinn, Estonia) (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
annul decision ECB/SSM/2018–EE-2 WHD-2017-0012 of 17 July 2018 withdrawing the banking licence of Versobank AS;
annul, accordingly, the cost order ECB-SSM-2018-EE-3 of 14 August 2018 regarding the internal administrative review;
order the defendant to pay all costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on twenty-four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the ECB lacks the competence for a decision with respect to the liquidation of Versobank AS.
Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to make its own assessment as regards the underlying anti-money laundering (AML)/combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) issues.
Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to investigate and to appraise carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case.
Fourth plea in law, alleging illegitimate reliance on an alleged submission of incorrect information with respect to the Latvian activities of Versobank.
Fifth plea in law, alleging failure by the ECB to take into account the positive role of the highly competent and reputable management team.
Sixth plea in law, alleging failure by the ECB to define the relevant regulatory requirements with which Versobank allegedly failed to comply.
Seventh plea in law, alleging failure to take into account that a substantial part of the business did not involve a significant AML-risk.
Eighth plea in law, alleging failure to give sufficient weight to the considerable reduction of customers in higher risk categories.
Ninth plea in law, alleging an erroneous assumption that any further remedial action would not be realistic.
Tenth plea in law, alleging erroneous considerations as regards a potential new management board.
Eleventh plea in law, alleging erroneous considerations as regards a potential suspension of voting rights.
Twelfth plea in law, alleging erroneous reliance on an alleged non-compliance with a precept.
Thirteenth plea in law, alleging erroneous considerations as regards the possibility of a further precept.
Fourteenth plea in law, alleging an illegitimate denial of the opportunity of self-liquidation.
Fifteenth plea in law, alleging illegitimate denial of the opportunity of a sale.
Sixteenth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and discrimination.
Seventeenth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.
Eighteenth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
Nineteenth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 19 of and recital 75 in the preamble to Regulation No 1024/2013 1 and misuse of power.
Twentieth plea in law, alleging violation of right to be heard of Versobank and of the shareholders because of an unduly short comment period.
Twenty-first plea in law, alleging further violations of Versobank’s rights of defence and rights to be heard.
Twenty-second plea in law, alleging failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.
Twenty-third plea in law, alleging violation of Versobank’s rights of access to the file.
Twenty-fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the shareholders’ rights in connection with the review carried out by the Administrative Board of Review pursuant to Article 24 of Regulation No 1024/2013.
____________
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).