# C_2021320EN.01003202.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/32

---

Appeal brought on 24 June 2021 by the European Central Bank against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-504/19, Crédit Lyonnais v ECB

(Case C-389/21 P)

(2021/C 320/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Zilioli, R. Ugena, M. Ioannidis and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Crédit Lyonnais

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order Crédit Lyonnais to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Crédit Lyonnais to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Central Bank (‘ECB’) submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside, because the General Court:

| — | exceeded the limits of judicial review by substituting its own assessment of complex economic factors for that of the ECB, in breach of the standard established by EU courts on the matter; |
| --- | --- |

—

exceeded the limits of judicial review by substituting its own assessment of complex economic factors for that of the ECB, in breach of the standard established by EU courts on the matter;

| — | breached its duty to state reasons by not allowing the ECB to understand in what way its assessment of the dual guarantee by the State, issued in the context of the regulated savings, could be flawed; |
| --- | --- |

—

breached its duty to state reasons by not allowing the ECB to understand in what way its assessment of the dual guarantee by the State, issued in the context of the regulated savings, could be flawed;

| — | distorted the evidence that had been submitted to it in the course of the proceedings by a manifestly incorrect reading, both of the decision contested at first instance (decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 of 3 May 2019), and of the methodology applied by the ECB and against which the request for exemption submitted by Crédit Lyonnais had been examined; |
| --- | --- |

—

distorted the evidence that had been submitted to it in the course of the proceedings by a manifestly incorrect reading, both of the decision contested at first instance (decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 of 3 May 2019), and of the methodology applied by the ECB and against which the request for exemption submitted by Crédit Lyonnais had been examined;

| — | infringed Article 4(1)(94) of Regulation 575/2013 (1) by adding to the definition of the risk of excessive leverage the criteria that are not there, and Article 429(14) thereof, concerning the exemption of certain exposures from the calculation of the leverage ratio, thus depriving the ECB of the discretion granted to it by virtue of that article. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed Article 4(1)(94) of Regulation 575/2013 (1) by adding to the definition of the risk of excessive leverage the criteria that are not there, and Article 429(14) thereof, concerning the exemption of certain exposures from the calculation of the leverage ratio, thus depriving the ECB of the discretion granted to it by virtue of that article.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1), as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/62 of 10 October 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the leverage ratio (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 37).

---