# C_2020304EN.01001401.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/14

---

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Société générale and Others v SRB

(Case T-444/20)

(2020/C 304/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Société générale (Paris, France), Crédit du Nord (Lille, France), SG Option Europe (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision No SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision No SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment in that the methods of calculation of ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) laid down in the SRM Regulation and the Delegated Regulation do not reflect the actual size or the actual risk of the institutions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment in that the methods of calculation of ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) laid down in the SRM Regulation and the Delegated Regulation do not reflect the actual size or the actual risk of the institutions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in that the mechanism of ex ante contributions to the SRF laid down in the SRM Regulation and the Delegated Regulation is based on an assessment that artificially exacerbates the risk profile of large French institutions, such as the applicants, and therefore leads to disproportionately high contributions in the light of the actual risk posed by those institutions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in that the mechanism of ex ante contributions to the SRF laid down in the SRM Regulation and the Delegated Regulation is based on an assessment that artificially exacerbates the risk profile of large French institutions, such as the applicants, and therefore leads to disproportionately high contributions in the light of the actual risk posed by those institutions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty since the calculation of the amount of the ex ante contributions fixed by the SRM Regulation, the Delegated Regulation and the Implementing Regulation, first, cannot be predicted with sufficient clarity and, second, does not depend so much on the inherent situation and risk profile of the institution but rather on its relative situation compared to the other contributing institutions. Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission should not have had responsibility for determining risk indicators in the context of the Delegated Regulation since those criteria have an extremely fundamental and decisive function in determining the amounts of the contributions (Article 290 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty since the calculation of the amount of the ex ante contributions fixed by the SRM Regulation, the Delegated Regulation and the Implementing Regulation, first, cannot be predicted with sufficient clarity and, second, does not depend so much on the inherent situation and risk profile of the institution but rather on its relative situation compared to the other contributing institutions. Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission should not have had responsibility for determining risk indicators in the context of the Delegated Regulation since those criteria have an extremely fundamental and decisive function in determining the amounts of the contributions (Article 290 TFEU).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration in that the SRB does not apply, for the calculation of the risk-adjusted variable, all the risk criteria laid down in the Delegated Regulation. In addition, the applicants take the view that the contested decision does not put forward sufficiently clear and precise information to allow them to recalculate the amount of the contribution owed, which also entails infringement of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration in that the SRB does not apply, for the calculation of the risk-adjusted variable, all the risk criteria laid down in the Delegated Regulation. In addition, the applicants take the view that the contested decision does not put forward sufficiently clear and precise information to allow them to recalculate the amount of the contribution owed, which also entails infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

---