# C_2018436EN.01005501.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/55

---

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB

(Case T-576/18)

(2018/C 436/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018;

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

—

order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018, imposing on the applicant an administrative penalty for continued breach of the common equity requirements provided for in Article 26(3) of 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) (‘the contested decision’), is ultra vires. In that regard, the applicant argues as follows:






  — | principally, it claims that the ECB erred in law in its interpretation of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which does not require establishments to obtain prior authorisation from the ECB in order to classify ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018, imposing on the applicant an administrative penalty for continued breach of the common equity requirements provided for in Article 26(3) of 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) (‘the contested decision’), is ultra vires. In that regard, the applicant argues as follows:

—

principally, it claims that the ECB erred in law in its interpretation of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which does not require establishments to obtain prior authorisation from the ECB in order to classify ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital;

| — | in the alternative, should the Court consider that classification of ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital without prior authorisation from the ECB constitutes a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the applicant claims not to have committed any intentional or negligent breach in applying that provision and that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, should the Court consider that classification of ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital without prior authorisation from the ECB constitutes a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the applicant claims not to have committed any intentional or negligent breach in applying that provision and that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty;

| — | in the further alternative, should the Court consider that a breach can be established and the applicant penalised, the applicant claims that, in the light of the lack of seriousness of the alleged breach and the cooperation of the applicant, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, should the Court consider that a breach can be established and the applicant penalised, the applicant claims that, in the light of the lack of seriousness of the alleged breach and the cooperation of the applicant, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the ECB of the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights in so far as it based the contested decision on complaints against which the applicant was unable to present its objections. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the ECB of the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights in so far as it based the contested decision on complaints against which the applicant was unable to present its objections.

---