Action brought on 4 November 2023 – Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case T-1056/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that the ECB is liable for the damage caused to the applicant as a result of the ECB’s failure to comply with its obligations with respect to the representation of the applicant and its rights of defence as well as in relation to the withdrawal of the ECB’s license by means of the ECB’s decision dated 2 November 2018, which was publicly announced and communicated by email on 5 November 2018;

declare that the ECB has to make good the damage by means of restitution in kind;

declare that the ECB has to provide financial compensation;

determine the amount of the financial damage after the applicant’s effective representation has been restored and after the Applicant has been able to make submissions on this point;

order the defendant to bear the cost of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the defendants’ conduct breached rules of law which were intended to confer rights upon the applicant in a sufficiently serious manner and that the applicant suffered damage as a direct result of those actions. The ECB’s conduct in this regard consists in (1) the failure to accept the applicant’s directors and the lawyer appointed by such directors as representatives of the Bank vis-à-vis the ECB and the failure to support an effective representation, (2) the wrongful treatment of the so-called Competent Person as the Bank’s sole representative, (3) the imposition by the ECB of the requirement that any act of representation needed to be either carried out by the Competent Person or accompanied by an express approval of the Competent Person, (4) the failure to comply with the ECB’s own alleged view on the representation of the applicant by means of inconsistent actions behind the scenes, (5) the failure to act in a transparent manner and document its own conduct, (6) the failure to put in place any safeguards or steps to mitigate the consequences of the ECB’s actions, (7) the ECBs conduct in connection to the de facto elimination of any potential residual representation of the Bank immediately prior to the license withdrawal and the rejection by the Maltese Court of Appeal of the ECB’s erroneous position on the Bank’s representation, and (8) the failure by the ECB, following its change of position on 20 December 2018, to rectify or mitigate the consequences of its past misconduct and specifically its insistence on an alleged privilege preventing the Competent Person from communicating information to the lawful representatives of the Bank.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant sustained significant damage as a result of the ECB’s conduct but that the quantification of such a loss is not possible until the applicant’s effective representation is restore.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB caused and continues to cause significant damage and that it is capable of compensation by financial means and by way of restitution in kind.

____________