Case C-550/25 P: Appeal brought on 14 August 2025 by ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2025 in Case T-100/23, ABLV Bank v ECB
Date: 2025-08-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, bank, confidentiality, disclosure of information, discretionary power








C_202506296EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6296


1.12.2025






Appeal brought on 14 August 2025 by ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2025 in Case T-100/23, ABLV Bank v ECB


(Case C-550/25 P)

(C/2025/6296)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


declare void Decision LS/CL/2022/261 of the ECB of 8 December 2022 rejecting its application for access to documents pursuant to Article 263 TFEU;










—


order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal; and










—


to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on twelve grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law by permitting the ECB to unilaterally reinterpret and narrow the scope of a request for access to documents contrary to the explicit wording of the request.
Second, the General Court erred in law (or if it is held to be a factual determination, manifestly distorted the facts) by holding that the list of documents provided by the ECB to the appellant was complete. The General Court moreover manifestly distorted the evidence, failed to deal with the appellant’s plea, and provided insufficient reasoning in its dismissal of the relevance of Annex C.2 to the reply.
Third, the General Court erred in law and provided insufficient reasoning in holding that parts of the appellant’s request for access to documents were not sufficiently precise within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision 2004/258/EC of the ECB of 4 March 2004 on public access to ECB documents (1).
Fourth, the General Court failed to respond to the appellant’s plea that the ECB is not entitled to unilaterally put a request for access to documents on hold while it seeks clarification from an applicant. The General Court moreover erred in law by finding that the ECB assisted the appellant within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Decision 2004/258.
Fifth, the General Court erred in law by permitting the ECB to refer the appellant to the website of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), contrary to Article 9(2) of Decision 2004/258.
Sixth, the General Court erred in law by holding that the ECB did not infringe its obligations to state reasons regarding its refusal to disclose Documents 3, 4, and 9.
Seventh, the General Court erred in law by holding that the ECB is entitled to rely on Article 27(1) of SSMR (2) and Article 53(1) of Directive 2013/36 (3) with respect to confidentiality obligations. The General Court moreover erred in law by granting the ECB a broad discretion under the Baumeister test (4).
Eighth, the General Court erred in law by holding that Documents 3, 4, and 9 are confidential in accordance with the Baumeister test.
Ninth, the General Court erred in law by holding that the ECB was not required, contrary to Article 4(4) of Decision 2004/258, to consult third parties in relation to whether it could release Documents 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9.
Tenth, the General Court erred in law by holding that the ECB did not infringe its obligations to state reasons regarding its refusal to disclose Documents 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Eleventh, the General Court erred in law by holding that the ECB correctly relied on Article 4(3) of Decision 2004/258 to justify its refusal to disclose Documents 5, 6, 7, and 8. The General Court moreover erred in law by not requiring the ECB to distinguish between preparatory documents relating to ongoing decision-making processes and those that no longer had a bearing on live or active matters.
Twelfth, the General Court erred in law by holding that the ECB did not fail to grant the appellant access to the file and thereby misinterprets Article 41 and Article 42 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European union and in particular Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter.


(1)  
            OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42.

(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).

(4)  Judgment of 19 June 2018, Baumeister (C-15/16, EU:C:2018:464).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6296/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)