# C_2023134EN.01001701.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/17

---

Action brought on 12 February 2023 — ABLV Bank v ECB and SRB

(Case T-71/23)

(2023/C 134/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damage caused to the applicant as a result of the discontinuation of its business and that of its Luxembourg subsidiary; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damage caused to the applicant as a result of the discontinuation of its business and that of its Luxembourg subsidiary;

| — | order the defendants jointly and severally to compensate the applicant for such damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants jointly and severally to compensate the applicant for such damage;

| — | determine that the material damage is at least EUR 414 691 000 plus default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

determine that the material damage is at least EUR 414 691 000 plus default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full;

| — | order the defendants to bear the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to bear the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendants’ conduct breached rules of law which were intended to confer rights upon the applicant in a sufficiently serious manner and that the applicant suffered damage as a direct result of those actions.






  — | It is argued that the defendants violated the limits of their powers and interfered with the competence of the national courts by announcing the winding up of the applicant and of its Luxembourg subsidiary under their respective national law; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendants’ conduct breached rules of law which were intended to confer rights upon the applicant in a sufficiently serious manner and that the applicant suffered damage as a direct result of those actions.

—

It is argued that the defendants violated the limits of their powers and interfered with the competence of the national courts by announcing the winding up of the applicant and of its Luxembourg subsidiary under their respective national law;

| — | The applicant maintains that the defendants acted without any legal or substantive basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant maintains that the defendants acted without any legal or substantive basis;

| — | The defendants, according to the applicant, violated their obligations to act lawfully in particular in the event of an external challenge of the legal system of a Member State by a third country. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendants, according to the applicant, violated their obligations to act lawfully in particular in the event of an external challenge of the legal system of a Member State by a third country.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant sustained a financial loss as a result of the forced termination of its business and that of its Luxembourg subsidiary. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant sustained a financial loss as a result of the forced termination of its business and that of its Luxembourg subsidiary.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants’ conduct resulted in the forced discontinuation of the business of the applicant and of its Luxembourg subsidiary. The subsequent self-liquidation was an inevitable step to mitigate the damage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants’ conduct resulted in the forced discontinuation of the business of the applicant and of its Luxembourg subsidiary. The subsequent self-liquidation was an inevitable step to mitigate the damage.

---