# C_2021338EN.01003001.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/30

---

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Banque postale v SRB

(Case T-383/21)

(2021/C 338/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | 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;

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

—

Article 4(2) and Articles 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 all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight 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 applicant, and therefore leads to disproportionately high contributions. |
| --- | --- |

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 applicant, and therefore leads to disproportionately high contributions.

| 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 clarity sufficiently early 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. Lastly, the applicant considers 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 clarity sufficiently early 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. Lastly, the applicant considers 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 contested decision does not put forward sufficiently clear and precise information to justify the amount of the contribution owed and to enable that amount to be reviewed. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration in that the contested decision does not put forward sufficiently clear and precise information to justify the amount of the contribution owed and to enable that amount to be reviewed.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection. In support of that plea, the applicant also relies on the fact that the contested decision does not put forward sufficiently clear and precise information to justify the amount of the contribution owed and to enable that amount to be reviewed. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection. In support of that plea, the applicant also relies on the fact that the contested decision does not put forward sufficiently clear and precise information to justify the amount of the contribution owed and to enable that amount to be reviewed.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as regards the restriction on the use of irrevocable payment commitments, on the ground that the contested decision does not show in a clear and detailed way why there is any need for, first, setting a ceiling on the use of irrevocable payment commitments (‘IPCs’) at 15 % and, second, accepting as collateral only cash. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as regards the restriction on the use of irrevocable payment commitments, on the ground that the contested decision does not show in a clear and detailed way why there is any need for, first, setting a ceiling on the use of irrevocable payment commitments (‘IPCs’) at 15 % and, second, accepting as collateral only cash.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicant claims in that regard that the pro-cyclicality and liquidity risks relied on by the SRB in order to limit the use of IPCs are unfounded, particularly in the light of the specific characteristics of the IPCs and the context of their use. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicant claims in that regard that the pro-cyclicality and liquidity risks relied on by the SRB in order to limit the use of IPCs are unfounded, particularly in the light of the specific characteristics of the IPCs and the context of their use.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging an error in law. The applicant claims that the SRB, first, relies on a misinterpretation of the provisions allowing the use of IPCs in imposing an identical measure on all the institutions on the basis of an abstract analysis and, second, negates the effectiveness of those provisions in so far as the proportion of IPCs is consistently and without sufficient justification limited to the statutory minimum. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging an error in law. The applicant claims that the SRB, first, relies on a misinterpretation of the provisions allowing the use of IPCs in imposing an identical measure on all the institutions on the basis of an abstract analysis and, second, negates the effectiveness of those provisions in so far as the proportion of IPCs is consistently and without sufficient justification limited to the statutory minimum.

---