# C_2016343EN.01004101.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/41

---

Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

(Case T-377/16)

(2016/C 343/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’, as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which is clearly inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’, as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which is clearly inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;

| — | in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedure requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 is unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017 is unlawful.

---