CELEX: 62016TN0133
Language: en
Date: 2016-03-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-133/16: Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence v ECB

17.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 175/30
            
         Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence v ECB
   (Case T-133/16)
   (2016/C 175/35)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence (Aix-en-Provence, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Central Bank
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/98) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful to the extent that it misconstrues the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (‘the CRD IV Directive’), and the provisions of Article L. 511-13 of the French monetary and financial code (‘the CMF’).
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful to the extent that it misconstrues the provisions of Article L. 511-52 of the CMF.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful to the extent that the ECB infringed Article L. 511-13 of the CMF and Articles 13 and 88 of the CRD IV Directive.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea, raised in the alternative, alleging that the contested decision is also unlawful to the extent that the ECB infringed Article L. 511-58 of the CMF.