CELEX: 62019CN0701
Language: en
Date: 2019-09-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-701/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2019 in Case T-687/18: Pilatus Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)

2.12.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 406/17
            
         
      Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Pilatus Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2019 in Case T-687/18: Pilatus Bank v European Central Bank (ECB)
      (Case C-701/19 P)
      (2019/C 406/24)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented by: O.H. Behrends, M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the contested order of the General Court;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare that the application for annulment is admissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  refer the case back to the General Court for it to determine the action for annulment; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.
      First plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted Maltese law by assuming that all powers of the appellant and its board were transferred to the competent person.
      Second plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal violated the guarantee of an effective remedy under European law.
      Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in assuming that the contested decision is a mere preparatory measure.
      Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court distorted the content of the contested decision as well as more generally the facts of the case.
      Fifth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of a possible consultation of the competent person with the directors.
      Sixth plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of an involvement of a lawyer in the case.
      Seventh plea in law, alleging that the order under appeal cannot be upheld based on the alternative ground of the contested decision being contained in a mere email.
      Eighth plea in law, alleging that the application has not become devoid of purpose.