# C_2020129EN.01000302.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/3

---

Action brought on 5 February 2020 — Satabank v ECB

(Case T-72/20)

(2020/C 129/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ECB’s decision dated 26 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to grant access to its file; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECB’s decision dated 26 November 2019 by which the ECB refuses to grant access to its file;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to take into account the applicant’s primary substantive right of access to its file. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to take into account the applicant’s primary substantive right of access to its file.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB decision is based on an unduly narrow interpretation of Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB decision is based on an unduly narrow interpretation of Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (1).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB decision violated the applicant’s right to an adequately reasoned decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB decision violated the applicant’s right to an adequately reasoned decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s right to be heard.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to an effective remedy pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

---