# C_2017006EN.01005701.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/57

---

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-698/16

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016

(2017/C 006/72)

The Notice in Case T-698/16 Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB should read as follows:

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB

(Case T-698/16)

(2016/C 441/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the ECB’s decision dated 11 July 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECB’s decision dated 11 July 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB’s earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB’s earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation.

---

(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 L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63).

1

---