# C_2022359EN.01007701.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/77

---

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — UniCredit Bank v SRB

(Case T-405/22)

(2022/C 359/96)

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 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18) including the annexes thereto, in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18) 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 11 April 2022 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’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of 11 April 2022 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 11 April 2022 and Annexes I and 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. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 11 April 2022 and Annexes I and 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 11 April 2022 and the annexes thereto are unlawful because Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 (1) and Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59 (2) are unlawful. Those provisions infringe the institutions’ right to effective judicial protection because they result in inherently opaque decisions adopted on the basis thereof. They must therefore be declared inapplicable. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of 11 April 2022 and the annexes thereto are unlawful because Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 (1) and Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59 (2) are unlawful. Those provisions infringe the institutions’ right to effective judicial protection because they result in inherently opaque decisions adopted on the basis thereof. They must therefore be declared inapplicable.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 11 April 2022 is unlawful because it infringes Articles 6, 7 and 20(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) 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’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 11 April 2022 is unlawful because it infringes Articles 6, 7 and 20(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) 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’.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 11 April 2022 is unlawful also because the SRB’s calculation of the applicant’s contribution is substantively incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 11 April 2022 is unlawful also because the SRB’s calculation of the applicant’s contribution is substantively incorrect.

---

(1)  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).

(2)  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).

(3)  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).

---