# C_2022389EN.01001201.xml

| 10.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/12

---

Action brought on 18 July 2022 — Sberbank Europe v SRB

(Case T-450/22)

(2022/C 389/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the SRB’s No Resolution-decision dated 1 March 2022 with respect to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void pursuant to Art. 264 TFEU the SRB’s No Resolution-decision dated 1 March 2022 with respect to the applicant;

| — | order the SRB to bear the applicant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to bear the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant instead of simply refraining from any action in accordance with its finding that the conditions of Article 18 of the ‘SRMR’ (1) were not met. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant instead of simply refraining from any action in accordance with its finding that the conditions of Article 18 of the ‘SRMR’ (1) were not met.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to grant the applicant a right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to grant the applicant a right to be heard.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB did not provide a sufficient statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB did not provide a sufficient statement of reasons.

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

4.

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

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and the ECB failed to consider the suspension of the applicant’s liabilities. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB and the ECB failed to consider the suspension of the applicant’s liabilities.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to consider a number of obvious and less burdensome alternatives, including the transfer of the applicant to another shareholder. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to consider a number of obvious and less burdensome alternatives, including the transfer of the applicant to another shareholder.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without providing any plausible explanation for this. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without providing any plausible explanation for this.

---

(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).

---