Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-203/18 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, May 04, 2018

• Resolution Date: May 04, 2018
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-203/18

Action brought on 23 March 2018 - VQ v ECB

(Case T-203/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VQ (represented by: G. Cahill, Barrister)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the European Central Bank’s Decision SNC-2016-0026 of 14 March 2018;

declare, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that Article 18(6) of the SSM Regulation¹ is unlawful, and therefore annul the said decision; and

order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging the ECB infringed Article 18(1) of the SSM Regulation and Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by imposing an administrative pecuniary penalty on the grounds of a legal framework based on non-directly effective EU and national law.

The applicant pleads that its repurchases of treasury shares between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015 should not be considered in breach of Articles 77(a) and 78 of Regulation 575/2013,² since the capital conservation buffer was not in force nor determined until 1 January 2016.

As long as the decision of the ECB relies on the rules governing the capital conservation buffer in Directive 2013/36,³ which were not binding not in force nor determined until 1 January 2016, the applicant respectfully submits that the ECB has imposed an administrative pecuniary penalty in the absence of a directly applicable rule of EU and national law.

The contested decision therefore breaches Article 18(1) of the SSM Regulation and, in particular, the principle of legality enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB infringed Article 132(1)(b) of Regulation 468/2014,⁴ as it orders the publication of an administrative pecuniary penalty on a non-anonymised basis.

Third plea in law, alleging that Article 18(6) of the SSM Regulation is unlawful and in breach of Article 263, sixth paragraph, TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in that it imposes a duty to publish an administrative pecuniary penalty irrespective of the fact that the applicant has the intention to bring an action before the General Court within the time limits provided in Article 263, sixth paragraph, TFEU.

By introducing a rule such as Article 18(6) of the SSM Regulation, the Council has deprived an...