Case T-366/23: Action brought on 4 July 2023 — YH v ECB
Date: 2023-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, equal treatment, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, rights of the defence, shareholder, shareholding








C_2023321EN.01005301.xml










11.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 321/53






Action brought on 4 July 2023 — YH v ECB
(Case T-366/23)
(2023/C 321/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: YH (represented by: J. Lehnhardt, R. Hübner and A. Walter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the ECB’s decision dated 5 May 2023 (ECB-SSM-2023-DE-12 QLF-2022-0054, QLF-2023-0020, QLF-2023-0021), which opposes the acquisition by the applicant of a qualifying holding in M.M. Warburg & Co (AG & Co.) Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien, M.M. Warburg & CO Hypothekenbank Aktiengesellschaft and Marcard, Stein & Co AG;










—


order the ECB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringements of the qualifying holding assessment procedure rules.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringements of essential procedural requirements by the ECB, i.e. (i) the right to be heard by taking into account facts on which the applicant could not comment prior to the decision and (ii) the obligation to give reasons for a negative decision (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Articles 31, 33(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank (1) and Article 22(1) sub-paragraph 1 and (2) sub-paragraph 2 of Council Regulation EU No 1024/2013. (2)











3.


Third plea in law, alleging a failure to examine relevant facts and to adopt only the decision on a sufficiently solid factual basis.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the incorrect interpretation and application by the ECB of the concept of a ‘qualifying holding’ by incorrectly calculating and attributing voting rights and capital share and misjudging the facts relating thereto.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation and misapplication by the ECB of the assessment criteria in Article 23(1), (2) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and the transposing German legislation in Section 2c(1b) sentence 1 of the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz).










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular the applicant’s rights to family life and marriage (Articles 7, 9 and 33), non-discrimination (Article 21), the presumption of innocence (Article 48) and the right to property (Article 17).










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.






(1)  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).

(2)  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).

(3)  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).