C 134/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
17.4.2023
Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), Republic of Latvia, European Commission, Ivan Fursin, Igors Buimisters, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. Ltd, GCK Holding Netherlands BV, Rikam Holding SA
Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: — set aside the judgment under appeal; — declare void Decision ECB/SSM/2016-529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/2 WOANCA-2016-0005 of the ECB of 11 July 2016 (‘the Contested Decision’) with respect to the appellant; — 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 three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the General Court committed several errors in connection with the issue of the representation of the appellant, which the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) examined in its judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923).
The appellant claims that the General Court erroneously rejected the appellant’s claim as to the ECB’s failure to notify the Contested Decision to the appellant because the General Court distorted the facts of the case in this regard and failed to consider the implications of the holding of the Court of Justice in paragraph 72 of its judgment of 8 July 1999, Hoechst v Commission (C-227/92 P, EU:C:1999:360).
The appellant moreover claims that the General Court erroneously rejected the appellant’s claim as to the absence of a representation of the appellant during the procedure leading to the Contested Decision.
The General Court distorted the facts of the case by failing to consider that the Contested Decision expressly states that the appellant was not involved in the procedure leading to the Contested Decision and, in the ECB’s opinion, did not have to be involved in the procedure.
The appellant finally claims that the General Court erroneously rejected the appellant’s claim that the appellant’s right to be heard had been infringed and that this error was also based on the General Court’s failure to consider that the appellant had not been involved in the procedure leading to the Contested Decision.
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred with respect to the manner in which the General Court treated the ECB’s decision prior to the review by the ECB’s Administrative Board of Review (the ‘ABoR’), on the one hand, and the ECB’s decision following the ABoR-review, on the other hand.
In this regard the appellant claims that the General Court violated the legitimate expectations, which it had created by means of its order of 17 November 2021, Trasta Komercbanka v ECB (T-247/16 RENV, not published, EU:T:2021:809).
Third plea in law alleging that General Court erroneously rejects the appellant’s plea of an infringement of Article 24(7) SSMR (1) by erroneously assuming that this provision envisages a decision with effect ex tunc.
This view of the General Court was considered erroneous also by the Commission (cf. paragraph 37 of order of 17 November 2021, Trasta Komercbanka v ECB (T-247/16 RENV, not published, EU:T:2021:809)).
(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).