# C_2020433EN.01002801.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/28

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by CA Consumer Finance against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB

(Case C-458/20 P)

(2020/C 433/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CA Consumer Finance (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of 16 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 in Case T–578/18, CA Consumer Finance v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of 16 July 2018;

| — | Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by CA Consumer Finance at first instance before the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by CA Consumer Finance at first instance before the General Court; and

| — | Order the ECB to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the three grounds of appeal, the appellant claims that:

| (1) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No (EU) 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No (EU) 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firm while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;

| (2) | the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant;

| (3) | the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-77 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle.

---