# C_2022237EN.01004102.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/41

---

Appeal brought on 12 April 2022 by Pilatus Bank plc against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 February 2022 in Case T-27/19, Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB

(Case C-256/22 P)

(2022/C 237/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission, Pilatus Holding ltd.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgement under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgement under appeal;

| — | declare void, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the ECB’s decision of 2 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the licence of Pilatus Bank; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the ECB’s decision of 2 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the licence of Pilatus Bank;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the action for annulment as far as the Court of Justice is not able to take a decision on the merits; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the action for annulment as far as the Court of Justice is not able to take a decision on the merits;

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

First ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erroneously assumed that it is legally relevant whether the ECB is responsible for the preceding de facto license withdrawal and in particular whether the ECB was under an obligation to prevent the de facto license withdrawal by means of an intervention pursuant to Article 6(5)(c) of Single supervisory mechanism Regulation (SSMR) (1).

Second ground of appeal alleging that the rejection by the General Court of the appellant’s second plea in law is based on the General Court’s erroneous view that the concept of reputation in Article 23 of Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV) (2) does not necessarily have to be interpreted in accordance with the European Union legal order so that an indictment in a third country may damage a shareholder’s reputation even if the relevant conduct is not illegal in the European Union order and even if the conduct is covered by a Blocking Statute.

Third ground of appeal alleging that the judgement under appeal is based on a number of further errors which include that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of proportionality by failing to consider that a proportionality analysis needs to be based on the grounds on which the decision is based.

Fourth ground of appeal alleging that the appellant’s procedural rights were violated.

---

(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).

(2)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

---