CELEX: 62020TN0563
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-563/20: Action brought on 9 September 2020 — Satabank v ECB

7.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 423/38
            
         
      Action brought on 9 September 2020 — Satabank v ECB
      (Case T-563/20)
      (2020/C 423/55)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the ECB of 30 June 2020 by which it revoked the applicant’s authorisation as a credit institution;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is fundamentally vitiated by the preceding measures of the ECB and of the Maltese Financial Services Authority (MFSA) and the ECB’s failure to deal with them appropriately in the contested decision.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by defects in connection with the alleged non-compliance on which it is based.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              It is argued, as regards the alleged anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CFT) issues, that the contested decision does not specify any current non-compliance with AML/CFT rules and that the ECB does not specify any determination by the competent AML/CFT authorities that the applicant breached AML/CFT provisions at the time of the contested decision,
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The applicant also alleges that the contested decision is vitiated by defects in connection with the alleged non-compliance with regulatory capital requirements. In this regard, the applicant argues that the contested decision is merely describing the consequences of the MFSA’s, and therefore indirectly the ECB’s, own actions.