# C_2015178EN.01001701.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/17 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 March 2015 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg v ECB

(Case T-122/15)

(2015/C 178/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: A. Glos, K. Lackhoff and M. Benzing, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the ECB of 5 January 2015 (ECB/SSM/15/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/3), by ordering the effects of the substituted decision of the ECB of 1 September 2014 (ECB/SSM/14/1 — 0SK1ILSPWNVBNQWU0W18/1) to be maintained; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the ECB applied an inappropriate criterion for the assessment of particular circumstances
—
The applicant asserts that the ECB based its decision as to whether, despite satisfying the size criterion, the applicant was to be classified as a less significant entity on grounds of particular circumstances under the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013( 1 ) read in conjunction with Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014( 2 ) on four different and mutually irreconcilable assessment criteria. Each of those criteria was in itself erroneous. —
The applicant further asserts that for the existence of particular circumstances under Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014 it is decisive that there were ‘specific and factual circumstances’ that made the classification of an entity as significant, and thereby necessarily subject to the ECB’s central supervision, ‘inappropriate’. According to the applicant, the classification of an entity as significant merely on the basis of its size was ‘inappropriate’, within the meaning of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014, where such a classification was not necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013. Supervision by the competent national authorities with macroprudential supervision by the ECB would have sufficed. | — | The applicant asserts that the ECB based its decision as to whether, despite satisfying the size criterion, the applicant was to be classified as a less significant entity on grounds of particular circumstances under the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013( 1 ) read in conjunction with Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014( 2 ) on four different and mutually irreconcilable assessment criteria. Each of those criteria was in itself erroneous. | — | The applicant further asserts that for the existence of particular circumstances under Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014 it is decisive that there were ‘specific and factual circumstances’ that made the classification of an entity as significant, and thereby necessarily subject to the ECB’s central supervision, ‘inappropriate’. According to the applicant, the classification of an entity as significant merely on the basis of its size was ‘inappropriate’, within the meaning of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014, where such a classification was not necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013. Supervision by the competent national authorities with macroprudential supervision by the ECB would have sufficed. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant asserts that the ECB based its decision as to whether, despite satisfying the size criterion, the applicant was to be classified as a less significant entity on grounds of particular circumstances under the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013( 1 ) read in conjunction with Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014( 2 ) on four different and mutually irreconcilable assessment criteria. Each of those criteria was in itself erroneous. | | | | |
| — | The applicant further asserts that for the existence of particular circumstances under Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014 it is decisive that there were ‘specific and factual circumstances’ that made the classification of an entity as significant, and thereby necessarily subject to the ECB’s central supervision, ‘inappropriate’. According to the applicant, the classification of an entity as significant merely on the basis of its size was ‘inappropriate’, within the meaning of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 468/2014, where such a classification was not necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013. Supervision by the competent national authorities with macroprudential supervision by the ECB would have sufficed. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors in the assessment of the facts of the case
—
The applicant asserts that the ECB erred (i) since in view of the submissions made by the applicant at the hearing and in the proceedings before the Administrative Board of Review the classification of the applicant as a significant entity was not in any way necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013 and (ii) because the classification of the applicant as a less significant entity was also inconsistent with the basic principles of that regulation. The ECB’s decision that particular circumstances did not exist was a manifest error. | — | The applicant asserts that the ECB erred (i) since in view of the submissions made by the applicant at the hearing and in the proceedings before the Administrative Board of Review the classification of the applicant as a significant entity was not in any way necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013 and (ii) because the classification of the applicant as a less significant entity was also inconsistent with the basic principles of that regulation. The ECB’s decision that particular circumstances did not exist was a manifest error. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant asserts that the ECB erred (i) since in view of the submissions made by the applicant at the hearing and in the proceedings before the Administrative Board of Review the classification of the applicant as a significant entity was not in any way necessary for the attainment of the objectives of Regulation No 1024/2013 and (ii) because the classification of the applicant as a less significant entity was also inconsistent with the basic principles of that regulation. The ECB’s decision that particular circumstances did not exist was a manifest error. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons
—
The applicant asserts that the reasons for the contested decision were illogical and contradictory. The ECB relied on a total of four assessment criteria which bore no relation to one another and were mutually irreconcilable. —
The principal grounds for the contested decision cannot be extrapolated from the contested decision. On the contrary, the ECB’s line of argumentation consisted in mere assertions and negations. —
Furthermore, the decision erroneously failed to take into consideration the applicant’s submissions in the administrative proceedings. In particular, the ECB did not explain why the factual and legal arguments presented by the applicant were not sufficient to rebut the presumption laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013. | — | The applicant asserts that the reasons for the contested decision were illogical and contradictory. The ECB relied on a total of four assessment criteria which bore no relation to one another and were mutually irreconcilable. | — | The principal grounds for the contested decision cannot be extrapolated from the contested decision. On the contrary, the ECB’s line of argumentation consisted in mere assertions and negations. | — | Furthermore, the decision erroneously failed to take into consideration the applicant’s submissions in the administrative proceedings. In particular, the ECB did not explain why the factual and legal arguments presented by the applicant were not sufficient to rebut the presumption laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant asserts that the reasons for the contested decision were illogical and contradictory. The ECB relied on a total of four assessment criteria which bore no relation to one another and were mutually irreconcilable. | | | | | | |
| — | The principal grounds for the contested decision cannot be extrapolated from the contested decision. On the contrary, the ECB’s line of argumentation consisted in mere assertions and negations. | | | | | | |
| — | Furthermore, the decision erroneously failed to take into consideration the applicant’s submissions in the administrative proceedings. In particular, the ECB did not explain why the factual and legal arguments presented by the applicant were not sufficient to rebut the presumption laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013. | | | | | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an ultra vires misuse of powers by failing to exercise discretion
—
The applicant claims that the ECB breached its obligation in each individual case to exercise the discretion provided for in Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013 and Article 70 of Regulation No 468/2014. The ECB thereby misused its powers. | — | The applicant claims that the ECB breached its obligation in each individual case to exercise the discretion provided for in Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013 and Article 70 of Regulation No 468/2014. The ECB thereby misused its powers. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims that the ECB breached its obligation in each individual case to exercise the discretion provided for in Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1024/2013 and Article 70 of Regulation No 468/2014. The ECB thereby misused its powers. | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to assess and take into consideration all of the relevant circumstances of each individual case
—
The applicant asserts that, in exercising the margin of discretion bestowed upon it, the ECB breached its duty to assess and take into consideration diligently and impartially all of the relevant facts and points of law of the case at issue. In particular, the ECB failed to evaluate all of the facts and points of law invoked by the applicant. | — | The applicant asserts that, in exercising the margin of discretion bestowed upon it, the ECB breached its duty to assess and take into consideration diligently and impartially all of the relevant facts and points of law of the case at issue. In particular, the ECB failed to evaluate all of the facts and points of law invoked by the applicant. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant asserts that, in exercising the margin of discretion bestowed upon it, the ECB breached its duty to assess and take into consideration diligently and impartially all of the relevant facts and points of law of the case at issue. In particular, the ECB failed to evaluate all of the facts and points of law invoked by the applicant. | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

( 2 )  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

---