Corte di giustizia UE/2022

62018TO0351 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 15 March 2022 ( *1 ) (Rectification) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑351/18 and T‑584/18 REC, Ukrselhosprom [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Solone (Ukraine), and Versobank AS, established in Tallinn (Estonia), represented by O. Behrends, lawyer, applicants, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECB), represented by C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents, and B. Schneider, lawyer, defendant, supported by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by A. Steiblytė D. Triantafyllou, and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents, intervener, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of M.J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), M. Kancheva and T. Perišin, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 On 6 October 2021, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] delivered a judgment in Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB ( T‑351/18 and T‑584/18 , EU:T:2021:669 ). 2 In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, an obvious inaccuracy found in paragraph 219 of that judgment. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: Paragraph 219 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, is to be read as ‘Thirdly, it should be noted, as observed by the ECB, that the FSA’s findings regarding breaches, which have not been properly challenged by the second applicant, had to be treated by the ECB as established facts and as not requiring, for that reason, a review by the ECB. Thus, the ECB rightly confined itself to verifying whether those breaches did indeed constitute grounds justifying the withdrawal of authorisation. That examination was carried out in paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the decision of 17 July 2018.’ instead of as ‘Thirdly, it should be noted, as observed by the ECB, that the FSA’s findings regarding breaches, which have not been properly challenged by the second applicant, had to be treated by the ECB as established facts and as not requiring, for that reason, a review by the ECB. Thus, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rightly confined itself to verifying whether those breaches did indeed constitute grounds justifying the withdrawal of authorisation. That examination was carried out in paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the decision of 17 July 2018.’. Luxembourg, 15 March 2022. E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] M.J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.