# C_2021349EN.01004602.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/46

---

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Deutsche Bank v SRB

(Case T-396/21)

(2021/C 349/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

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 eight pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) because it contains numerous instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, and does not disclose the data of other institutions.

| 2. | Second plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: The decision infringes the requirement of effective legal protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter because judicial review of the decision is practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 3. | Third plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (2) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: Articles 4 to 9 of and Annex I to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) (‘the delegated regulation’), as amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434, (2) infringe higher-ranking law because they make judicial review of the decision practically impossible, thus impairing the applicant’s effective legal protection.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: The decision infringes Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, (3) in conjunction with Article 69(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (4) (‘the SRM Regulation’), because the annual target level was not calculated based on the amount of the covered deposits at the start of the accumulation phase; in the alternative, Article 69(1) of the SRM Regulation infringes higher-ranking law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: The decision infringes Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, (3) in conjunction with Article 69(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (4) (‘the SRM Regulation’), because the annual target level was not calculated based on the amount of the covered deposits at the start of the accumulation phase; in the alternative, Article 69(1) of the SRM Regulation infringes higher-ranking law.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of and Annex I to the delegated regulation infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia because they infringe the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s very high loss-absorption capacity and the related substantially lower risk of use of the Single Resolution Fund in the event of resolution of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s very high loss-absorption capacity and the related substantially lower risk of use of the Single Resolution Fund in the event of resolution of the applicant.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (5) and the requirement of risk-appropriate assessment of contributions.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1434 of 14 December 2015 correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2016 L 233, p. 1).

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(5)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

---