CELEX: 62018TN0280
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-280/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB

201807060461994202018/C 259/522802018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503373821Case T-280/18: Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN3710120180503EN0052371382Action brought on 3 May 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB
   (Case T-280/18)2018/C 259/52Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
            —
         
         
            annul the decisions of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 23 February 2018 with regard to the applicant and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg, SA;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the defendant to pay the costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on thirteen pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging that the SRB lacked the competence for the decision as to liquidation.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights by announcing a formal decision not to adopt resolution measures.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. (
                  1
               )
         
      
            4.
         
         
            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s rights owing to its erroneous assessment pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 806/2014.
         
      
            5.
         
         
            Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to be heard and other procedural rights.
         
      
            6.
         
         
            Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right to an appropriately reasoned decision.
         
      
            7.
         
         
            Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case.
         
      
            8.
         
         
            Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.
         
      
            9.
         
         
            Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of equal treatment.
         
      
            10.
         
         
            Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right of property and the freedom to conduct a business.
         
      
            11.
         
         
            Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.
         
      
            12.
         
         
            Twelth plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed a détournement de pouvoir.
         
      
            13.
         
         
            Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the applicant’s right pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union because of a failure to ensure the handling of the applicant’s affairs by the relevant institutions and bodies of the Union.
         
      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1)