Action brought on 5 June 2018 – Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB

(Case T-351/18)

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 (ECB)

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the European Central Bank ECB/SSM/2018–EE-1 WHD-2017-0012 of 26 March 2018 withdrawing the banking licence of Versobank AS;

order the defendant to pay all the costs,

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eleven 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) counter-terrorism financing (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, in particular as regards AML/CFT risks and compliance with the precepts.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB illegitimately denied other options, in particular to sell Versobank or to grant the opportunity for Versobank to opt for self-liquidation.

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

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

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

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

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the right to be heard.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the right to defence.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision.

____________