Action brought on 12 July 2019 — Corneli v ECB

(Case T-502/19)

(2019/C 312/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, L. Boggio and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested decision to be unlawful and thus null and void;

— order the defendant to pay the costs; and

— order, as a measure of organisation of procedure, that the contested decision and the subsequent renewal decision, in their respective full versions, be submitted to the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 1 January 2019, adopted on the basis of a draft decision of the Supervisory Board pursuant to Article 26(8) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, (1) pursuant to Articles 69octiesdecies, 70 and 98 of decreto legislativo n. 385 del 1o settembre 1993 (Legislative Decree No 385 of 1 September 1993; ‘the TUB’), transposing Article 29 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 1024/2013, to dissolve the administrative and supervisory bodies of Banca Carige S.p.A., having its registered office in Genoa, and to replace them with three special administrators and with a supervisory committee formed of three members, respectively.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of proportionality and infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of Directive 2014/59/EU (2) and Article 69octiesdecies et seq. of the TUB. — The applicant claims in this respect that early intervention measures need to be introduced gradually, which was not the case here. The most intrusive measure is, therefore, unlawful and void.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to give adequate reasoning as regards the requirements of proportionality and of taking a gradual approach imposed by the overall early intervention system.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the last sentence of Article 29(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU and failure to observe the principle of sound public administration. — The applicant claims in this respect that the appointment of members of the former board of directors as temporary administrators amounts to a failure to comply with the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 70 of the TUB, misuse of powers and a failure to provide sufficient reasoning. — The applicant claims in this respect that imposing the special administration on the grounds of serious infringements or irregularities renders the measure contradictory and inconsistent.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules relating to the rights of shareholders contained in Directive (EU) 1132/2017 (3) and the Italian Civil Code, as well as those which may be enforced through the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Italian Constitution on the protection of property, savings, private economic initiative and the right to self-determination of citizens in personal choices.

(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) Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

(3) Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ 2017 L 169, p. 46).