CELEX: 62018TN0564
Language: en
Date: 2018-09-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-564/18: Action brought on 21 September 2018 — Bernis and Others v ECB

3.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 436/53
            
         
      Action brought on 21 September 2018 — Bernis and Others v ECB
      (Case T-564/18)
      (2018/C 436/75)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Ernests Bernis (Jurmala, Latvia), Oļegs Fiļs (Jurmala), OF Holding SIA (Riga, Latvia) and Cassandra Holding Company SIA (Jurmala) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul decision ECB-SSM-2018-LVABL-2 WOANCA-2018-0007 of 11 July 2018 withdrawing the banking licence of ABLV Bank, AS;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECB incorrectly assumed that the conditions for a licence withdrawal were met.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to take into account the discretionary nature of the decision.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB committed a misuse of power.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s decision was not appropriately reasoned.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of essential procedural requirements.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the nemo auditur principle.