# C_2021368EN.01002502.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/25

---

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — UniCredit Bank v SRB

(Case T-402/21)

(2021/C 368/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit Bank AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Schäfer, H. Großerichter and F. Kruis, 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 they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

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 they concern the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 infringes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU because it has not been properly established. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 infringes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU because it has not been properly established.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and Annexes I to III thereto infringe essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the right to good administration in that they do not contain an adequate statement of reasons as required by the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and Annexes I to III thereto infringe essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the right to good administration in that they do not contain an adequate statement of reasons as required by the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and Annexes I to II thereto infringe the right to an effective remedy under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter in that it is practically impossible to subject the substantive accuracy of the decision to effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and Annexes I to II thereto infringe the right to an effective remedy under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter in that it is practically impossible to subject the substantive accuracy of the decision to effective judicial review.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and the annexes thereto are unlawful because Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) are unlawful. They infringe the institutions’ right to effective judicial protection because they result in inherently opaque decisions adopted on the basis thereof. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and the annexes thereto are unlawful because Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) are unlawful. They infringe the institutions’ right to effective judicial protection because they result in inherently opaque decisions adopted on the basis thereof.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that, if the view is taken that the opaque calculation of the institutions’ contribution is already provided for in Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 (2) and Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59, (3) those legal acts are unlawful for the reasons mentioned in the fourth plea in law and should therefore be declared inapplicable. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, if the view is taken that the opaque calculation of the institutions’ contribution is already provided for in Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 (2) and Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59, (3) those legal acts are unlawful for the reasons mentioned in the fourth plea in law and should therefore be declared inapplicable.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 infringes Articles 6, 7 and 20(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 in that, in calculating the risk-adjustment multiplier, the defendant did not take account of the risk indicator Net Stable Funding Ratio (‘NSFR’), the risk indicator Minimum Requirements for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (‘MREL’) or the risk indicators ‘complexity’ and ‘resolvability’. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 infringes Articles 6, 7 and 20(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 in that, in calculating the risk-adjustment multiplier, the defendant did not take account of the risk indicator Net Stable Funding Ratio (‘NSFR’), the risk indicator Minimum Requirements for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (‘MREL’) or the risk indicators ‘complexity’ and ‘resolvability’.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and Annexes I to III thereto infringe essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the right to good administration under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter because the applicant was not heard before the decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision of 14 April 2021 and Annexes I to III thereto infringe essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the right to good administration under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter because the applicant was not heard before the decision was adopted.

---

(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)  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).

(3)  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).

---