# C_2022432EN.01003101.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/31

---

Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others

(Case T-524/22)

(2022/C 432/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the contested decision, including, if applicable, the Commission’s and the Council’s approval of such contested decision; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the contested decision, including, if applicable, the Commission’s and the Council’s approval of such contested decision; (1) and

| — | order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence.






  — | The applicant claims that the contested decision presupposes an ability of the SRB to make binding determinations as to the insolvency status of the parent entity. This aspect is solely a matter for the competent national courts. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence.

—

The applicant claims that the contested decision presupposes an ability of the SRB to make binding determinations as to the insolvency status of the parent entity. This aspect is solely a matter for the competent national courts.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant.






  — | The applicant claims, inter alia, that the contested decision was not notified properly to the applicant as its true addressee. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant.

—

The applicant claims, inter alia, that the contested decision was not notified properly to the applicant as its true addressee.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects. These defects include that the conditions of Article 18 SRMR (2) were not met. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects. These defects include that the conditions of Article 18 SRMR (2) were not met.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriate alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriate alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Croatia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Croatia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification.

---

(1)  The decision contested by the applicant in this case is the SRB’s decision of 1 March 2022 (SRB/EES/2022/21) with respect to the Croatian subsidiary of the applicant (Sberbank banka d.d.).

(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).

---