Language of document :

Appeal brought on 9 March 2022 by Nemea Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2021 in Case T-321/17, Niemelä and Others v ECB

(Case C-181/22 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nemea Bank plc (represented by: A. Meriläinen, asianajaja)

Other parties to the proceedings: Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea plc, Nevestor SA, European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the order under appeal;

refer the case back to the General Court to be properly adjudicated, but to a different chamber with an entirely different composition of judges, given the bias and non-respect of the Appellant’s fundamental rights by the chamber having issued the said order, and

order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by erroneously assuming that there is no need to adjudicate in case T-321/17, erroneously failed to take into consideration that the purported effect ex tunc of the ECB decision of 30 June 2017 violated Art. 263 TFEU and erroneously assumed that the Appellant has no interest in the annulment of the ECB decision of license withdrawal of 23 March 2017.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law with respect to numerous infringements of essential procedural requirements.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 47 of the Charter prior to the commencement of the procedure and the continuing lack of an effective representation of the Appellant during the proceedings.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 41 of the Charter in deciding the application for damages to be inadmissible.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by failing to take into consideration the Appellant’s rights provided by the Art. 340 TFEU when deciding that the application for damages is inadmissible.

____________