Appeal brought on 17 December 2021 by Versobank AS against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Joined Cases T-351/18 and T-584/18, Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB

(Case C-803/21 P)

(2022/C 73/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Versobank AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission, Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— declare void the decisions of the ECB on the revocation of the appellant’s authorization dated 26 March 2018 (the ‘First Contested Decision’) and 17 July 2018 (the ‘Second Contested Decision’);

— to the extent that the Court of Justice of the European Union is not in a position to take a decision on the merits, refer joined cases T-351/18 and T-584/18 back to the General Court for it to determine the actions for annulment; and

— order the ECB to pay the appellant’s costs and the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erred in law by erroneously assuming that there is no need to adjudicate in case T-351/18, erroneously failed to take into consideration that the purported effect ex tunc of the Second Contested Decision violated Article 263 TFEU and erroneously assumed that the appellant has no interest in the annulment of the First Contested Decision.

Second ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erred in law with respect to numerous infringements of essential procedural requirements.

Third ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erroneously failed to recognise that the ECB exceeded its competence by making determinations in the areas of payment services and other financial services, AML/CFT (Anti-money Laundering/Counter-terrorism Financing) matters and resolution matters.

Fourth ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erred in law by making findings on an issue which was precluded by a settlement in front of a national administrative court.

Fifth ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erroneously applied the SRMR (1) instead of national law as to failing or likely to fail assessments and no resolution decisions and misinterpreted their significance without ordering the disclosure of such decisions.

Sixth ground of appeal alleging that the General Court (1) failed to respect the limits of its own competence pursuant to Article 263 TFEU by making determinations governed by national law which fall within the exclusive competence of the competent national authorities and courts and went beyond a review of the ECB’s decisions by making determinations and assessments which the ECB had not made, (2) based its decision on surprising findings on the basis of a belated submission of voluminous documents immediately prior to the hearing without giving the appellant an opportunity to comment, (3) failed to take into consideration the violation of the appellant’s rights pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter prior to the commencement of the procedure and the continuing lack of an effective representation of the appellant during the proceedings and (4) erroneously refused to order the production of resolution decisions on a national level but nonetheless expressed detailed but erroneous views on the legal significance and legal bass of these decisions.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).