# C_2019072EN.01004701.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/47

---

Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB

(Case T-27/19)

(2019/C 72/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pilatus Bank plc (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) and Pilatus Holding ltd. (Ta’Xbiex) (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 decisions dated 2 November 2018 and send to Pilatus Bank plc. on 5 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the banking license of Pilatus Bank; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECB’s decisions dated 2 November 2018 and send to Pilatus Bank plc. on 5 November 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the banking license of Pilatus Bank;

| — | 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 applicants rely on eleven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB has failed to assume its responsibilities pursuant to Art. 14(5) of the SSM Regulation. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB has failed to assume its responsibilities pursuant to Art. 14(5) of the SSM Regulation. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed a legal ground for a license withdrawal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB erroneously assumed a legal ground for a license withdrawal.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to consider appropriately the discretionary nature of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to consider appropriately the discretionary nature of the decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to assess the relevant facts and failed to do so impartially and objectively. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to assess the relevant facts and failed to do so impartially and objectively.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditur principle. |
| --- | --- |

6.

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

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB erred in law with respect to its considerations in connection with the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB erred in law with respect to its considerations in connection with the presumption of innocence.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principal of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principal of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Art. 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir. |
| --- | --- |

9.

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

| 10. | Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the Applicants’ right of defence and their right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the Applicants’ right of defence and their right to be heard.

| 11. | Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to provide an adequately reasoned decision.

---

(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.

---