# C_2023063EN.01006002.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/60

---

Action brought on 1 December 2022 — Sberbank Europe v ECB

(Case T-790/22)

(2023/C 63/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (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 21 September 2022 by which the ECB rejected the applicant’s request for access to the ECB’s failing or likely to fail-assessment pursuant to the rules governing public access to documents with respect to Sberbank Slovenia (Sberbank banka d.d); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECB’s decision dated 21 September 2022 by which the ECB rejected the applicant’s request for access to the ECB’s failing or likely to fail-assessment pursuant to the rules governing public access to documents with respect to Sberbank Slovenia (Sberbank banka d.d);

| — | order the ECB to bear the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s rights by failing to deal with the applicant’s request in one comprehensive decision which takes into account all relevant legal aspects and specifically that the ECB ignored certain grounds for access, that it artificially neutralised certain grounds for access, that it erroneously interpreted the public access regime in a manner which limits rather than expands access and transparency, that it failed to interpret and apply all access regimes in a coherent manner, that it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons, that it erred by adopting a separate decision on a potential right for access pursuant to Article 22(2) of the SSMR (1) and Article 32(1) of the SSMFR, (2) that it erroneously excluded from consideration the principle of effective legal protection pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that it erroneously assumed an obligation to withhold the unredacted text of the FOLTF-assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicant’s rights by failing to deal with the applicant’s request in one comprehensive decision which takes into account all relevant legal aspects and specifically that the ECB ignored certain grounds for access, that it artificially neutralised certain grounds for access, that it erroneously interpreted the public access regime in a manner which limits rather than expands access and transparency, that it failed to interpret and apply all access regimes in a coherent manner, that it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons, that it erred by adopting a separate decision on a potential right for access pursuant to Article 22(2) of the SSMR (1) and Article 32(1) of the SSMFR, (2) that it erroneously excluded from consideration the principle of effective legal protection pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that it erroneously assumed an obligation to withhold the unredacted text of the FOLTF-assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned and vitiated by manifest errors of assessment because there is no discernible reason and no explanation why specifically the redacted parts of the FOLTF-assessment needed to be withheld. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned and vitiated by manifest errors of assessment because there is no discernible reason and no explanation why specifically the redacted parts of the FOLTF-assessment needed to be withheld.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB misinterpreted and incorrectly applied Article 4(1)(c) of the ECB Public Access Decision, (3) Article 27 SSMR, Article 53 CRD IV (4) and the Baumeister decision of the Court of Justice. (5) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB misinterpreted and incorrectly applied Article 4(1)(c) of the ECB Public Access Decision, (3) Article 27 SSMR, Article 53 CRD IV (4) and the Baumeister decision of the Court of Justice. (5)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB misinterpreted and incorrectly applied Article 4(2) of the ECB Public Access Decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB misinterpreted and incorrectly applied Article 4(2) of the ECB Public Access Decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is procedurally flawed because the ECB failed to grant access to the file pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the procedure leading to the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is procedurally flawed because the ECB failed to grant access to the file pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the procedure leading to the contested 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 (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(2)  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 (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

(3)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (2004/258/EC) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).

(4)  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).

(5)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 June 2018Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht v Ewald Baumeister (C-15/16, EU:C:2018:464).

---