do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-732/19: Action brought on 25 October 2019 – PNB Banka and Others v SRB
Date: 2019-10-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2020027EN.01003601.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/36






Action brought on 25 October 2019 – PNB Banka and Others v SRB
(Case T-732/19)
(2020/C 27/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 10 other applicants (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the SRB’s decision of 15 August 2019 with respect to Bank X, publicly announced by means of a press release and a notice summarising the decision of the same date;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on fourteen pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the SRB lacked the competence for the contested decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is an impermissible type of decision.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of errors in connection with the ‘failing or likely to fail’ (FOLTF) assessment by the ECB.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by numerous errors in connection with the SRB’s further decisions.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated procedurally because it is based on an illegal on-site inspection.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of proportionality.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that that the contested decision does not include an appropriate statement of reasons.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicants’ rights to be heard.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on the ECB's illegal opposition to the acquisition of Bank X.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging that that the contested decision violates the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision fails to take into account that the position of the applicant is largely due to misconduct by the ECB.










13.


Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated procedurally because it is based on the ECB’s assessment and the ECB failed to take appropriate steps to eliminate the influence of officials with a conflict of interest.










14.


Fourteenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed a détournement de pouvoir.