# C_2022311EN.01002401.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/24

---

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — Dexia Crédit Local v SRB

(Case T-411/22)

(2022/C 311/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dexia Crédit Local (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J.-M. Gollier, 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, reference SRB/ES/2022/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

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, reference SRB/ES/2022/18;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 69(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 (1) in so far as it sets the target level for 2022 at one-eighth of 1,6 % of covered deposits in the Member States participating in the SRF. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 69(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 (1) in so far as it sets the target level for 2022 at one-eighth of 1,6 % of covered deposits in the Member States participating in the SRF.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (2) is unlawful:






  — | on the ground that it infringes the principle of proportionality in so far as the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the SRF, first, is not consistent with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 806/2014, second, does not take into account the fact that the applicant is a credit institution in run-off management which is covered by a State guarantee and in respect of which the SRF will theoretically never be called upon and, third, makes its orderly resolution more expensive; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (2) is unlawful:

—

on the ground that it infringes the principle of proportionality in so far as the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the SRF, first, is not consistent with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 806/2014, second, does not take into account the fact that the applicant is a credit institution in run-off management which is covered by a State guarantee and in respect of which the SRF will theoretically never be called upon and, third, makes its orderly resolution more expensive;

| — | on the ground that it infringes the principle of equal treatment in so far as it treats institutions in run-off management under State guarantee and operative institutions in the same way. |
| --- | --- |

—

on the ground that it infringes the principle of equal treatment in so far as it treats institutions in run-off management under State guarantee and operative institutions in the same way.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the SRB infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment for the same reasons as those stated in the second plea in law, in so far as the SRB failed to respect those principles by applying to the applicant, without any adjustment, the provisions of Delegated Regulation 2015/63. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the SRB infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment for the same reasons as those stated in the second plea in law, in so far as the SRB failed to respect those principles by applying to the applicant, without any adjustment, the provisions of Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Articles 5, 69 and 70 of Regulation No 806/2014 in so far as they were adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU even though they do not concern approximation of laws. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Articles 5, 69 and 70 of Regulation No 806/2014 in so far as they were adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU even though they do not concern approximation of laws.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis for Articles 5, 69 and 70 of Regulation No 806/2014 in so far as they were adopted on the basis of Article 114 TFEU despite the fact that they are fiscal provisions. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---

(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 255, p. 1).

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

---