Appeal brought on 6 December 2021 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2021 in Case T-139/19, Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case C-750/21 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the order under appeal;

declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the ECB’s decision of 21 December 2018 declaring to the appellant that it was no longer competent to ensure its direct prudential supervision and to take measures concerning it;

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to take a decision on the merits to refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 ¹ by falsely assuming that the ECB has no further competence with respect to the appellant as a result of the appellant’s loss of license.

Second ground of appeal alleging that the General Court fails to address appropriately the pleas in law of the appellant which do not concern the alleged lack of competence of the ECB.

____________

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).