CELEX: 62016TN0809
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-809/16: Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

30.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 30/49
            
         Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
   (Case T-809/16)
   (2017/C 030/56)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016 (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06)’), as well as the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13 of 20 May 2016 (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’), at least in so far as those decisions concern the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               —
            
            
               First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decisions.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decisions.