# C_2015245EN.01003401.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/34 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 14 May 2015 — Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal) v ECB

(Case T-251/15)

(2015/C 245/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial (Portugal), SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: R. Oliveira, N. Cunha Barnabé and S. Estima Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the tacit decision taken by the European Central Bank (ECB) on 4 March 2015, under the terms of Article 8(3) of Decision ECB/2004/3 (Tacit Decision), not to provide full access to the ECB decision of 1 August 2014, suspending Banco Espírito Santo S.A.’s Eurosystem monetary policy counterparty status and obliging the said bank to fully repay its debt to the Eurosystem to an amount of 10 billion EUR, as well as all documents, in the ECB’s possession, which were in any way related to the said decision; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | annul the express decision taken by the ECB on 1 April 2015 (Express Decision), not to provide full access to the abovementioned documents; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| - | ------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, concerning the Tacit Decision, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons.
—
The applicant puts forward that the Tacit Decision, by not providing the reasons for the refusal to provide full access to the requested ECB documents, did not comply with the duty to state reasons and should thus be annulled. | — | The applicant puts forward that the Tacit Decision, by not providing the reasons for the refusal to provide full access to the requested ECB documents, did not comply with the duty to state reasons and should thus be annulled. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant puts forward that the Tacit Decision, by not providing the reasons for the refusal to provide full access to the requested ECB documents, did not comply with the duty to state reasons and should thus be annulled. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons in relation to Governing Council decision.
—
The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision refusing access to the requested information should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3 and, in particular, (ii) it did not provide the reasons why the exception listed in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of the Decision ECB/2004/3 would justify the restriction of the applicant’s right of access. | — | The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision refusing access to the requested information should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3 and, in particular, (ii) it did not provide the reasons why the exception listed in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of the Decision ECB/2004/3 would justify the restriction of the applicant’s right of access. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision refusing access to the requested information should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3 and, in particular, (ii) it did not provide the reasons why the exception listed in the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of the Decision ECB/2004/3 would justify the restriction of the applicant’s right of access. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the first, second and seventh indents of Article 4(1)(a) of the Decision ECB/2004/3. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the first indent of Article 4(2) of the Decision ECB/2004/3 in relation to the Governing Council decisions. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 5. | Fifth plea, concerning the Express Decision, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons in relation to executive Board’s proposals.
—
The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar: (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (ii) it failed to provide any particular reasons to refuse access to specific information requested by the applicant; (iii) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(1)(a) seventh indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (iv) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(2) first indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (v) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Decision ECB/2004/3. | — | The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar: (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (ii) it failed to provide any particular reasons to refuse access to specific information requested by the applicant; (iii) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(1)(a) seventh indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (iv) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(2) first indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (v) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Decision ECB/2004/3. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant puts forward that the Express Decision should be annulled on the grounds that it breached its duty to state reasons insofar: (i) it only presented generic considerations regarding the invoked exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (ii) it failed to provide any particular reasons to refuse access to specific information requested by the applicant; (iii) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(1)(a) seventh indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (iv) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(2) first indent of the Decision ECB/2004/3; (v) it failed to state the reasons for not disclosing the information on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Decision ECB/2004/3. | | |

---