# C_2021206EN.01002901.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/29

---

Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Fursin and Others v ECB

(Case T-145/21)

(2021/C 206/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ivan Fursin (Kiev, Ukraine) and 5 other applicants (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay financial compensation in respect of the harm which the applicants have suffered as a result of the defendant’s decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIPOINFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005, of 3 March 2016, to revoke Trasta Komercbanka AS’ licence; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay financial compensation in respect of the harm which the applicants have suffered as a result of the defendant’s decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIPOINFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005, of 3 March 2016, to revoke Trasta Komercbanka AS’ licence;

| — | determine that the material damage amounts to at least EUR 25 million (1) together with the compensatory interest starting at 3 March 2016 until delivery of the judgment in the present case and with corresponding default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full; and |
| --- | --- |

—

determine that the material damage amounts to at least EUR 25 million (1) together with the compensatory interest starting at 3 March 2016 until delivery of the judgment in the present case and with corresponding default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full; and

| — | 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 applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not deal appropriately with procedural irregularities. These include the fact that the Latvian FCMC (2) had concluded, immediately prior to the initiation of the licence withdrawal procedure, that a licence withdrawal was not warranted and that this fact was subsequently omitted from the request by the FCMC to revoke the licence. The applicants further complain that the English language version of the FCMC’s most recent decision was manipulated. Further alleged procedural irregularities concern a failure to deal effectively with potentially corrupt conduct by Latvian and European officials with respect to the present matter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not deal appropriately with procedural irregularities. These include the fact that the Latvian FCMC (2) had concluded, immediately prior to the initiation of the licence withdrawal procedure, that a licence withdrawal was not warranted and that this fact was subsequently omitted from the request by the FCMC to revoke the licence. The applicants further complain that the English language version of the FCMC’s most recent decision was manipulated. Further alleged procedural irregularities concern a failure to deal effectively with potentially corrupt conduct by Latvian and European officials with respect to the present matter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated substantive provisions by acting outside its area of competence when issuing the contested decision, in particular with regard to money laundering matters and that the defendant erroneously assumed grounds for a licence withdrawal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated substantive provisions by acting outside its area of competence when issuing the contested decision, in particular with regard to money laundering matters and that the defendant erroneously assumed grounds for a licence withdrawal.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicants suffered significant financial harm, especially because of Trasta Komercbanka AS’ liquidation as a result of the wrongful licence withdrawal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicants suffered significant financial harm, especially because of Trasta Komercbanka AS’ liquidation as a result of the wrongful licence withdrawal.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a causal link between the licence withdrawal and the damage suffered by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a causal link between the licence withdrawal and the damage suffered by the applicants.

---

(1)  The amounts are attributable to each of the applicants in the amounts of their shareholding of Trasta Komercbanka AS.

(2)  Financial Capital Markets Commission.

---