Action brought on 20 November 2018 – Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case T-687/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta'Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

Defendant: ECB

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the ECB’s decisions dated 10 September 2018 to the effect that any communication of Pilatus Bank plc to the ECB needs to be made through the “Competent Person” or include the “Competent Person’s” approval as an attachment;

order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s decision lacks any legal basis in national or European law.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated substantive and procedural rights of the applicant pursuant to the Single Supervisory Mechanism Regulation, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rule of law, in particular the right to access to file, the right to make use of remedies, the right to be represented by external counsel and the right to the confidentiality of communications with the counsel.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed a détournement de pouvoir.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the requirement of an appropriately reasoned decision.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s right to be heard.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.

____________