CELEX: 62021TN0667
Language: en
Date: 2021-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-667/21: Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB

13.12.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 502/38
            
         
      Action brought on 12 October 2021 — BAWAG PSK v ECB
      (Case T-667/21)
      (2021/C 502/57)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Wien, Austria) (represented by: H. Bälz and D. Bliesener, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Central Bank
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the defendant’s decision of 2 August 2021 (1); and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant is incompetent to impose absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) of the Austrian Banking Act (‘BWG’).
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the imposition of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG is time barred.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant did not breach the large exposure limit provided in Art. 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 375/2013 (2).
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to be heard.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly calculated the amount of absorption interest under Sec. 97(1) BWG.
               
            
         (1)  No SSM- 2021-ATBAW-7_ESA-2018-0000126.
      
         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1-337).