# C_2019295EN.01007701.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/77

---

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Société générale and Others v SRB

(Case T-466/19)

(2019/C 295/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Société générale (Paris, France), Crédit du Nord (Lille, France) and SG Option Europe (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

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 manifest infringement of the principle of equal treatment. In that regard, the applicants claim that they are directly and heavily penalised by the provisions which the contested decision implements owing to the calculation methods of both the basic contribution and of the risk factor as defined therein. According to the applicants, those criteria do not reflect their actual size or their real risk. The manifest infringement of the principle of equality stemming directly from the provisions is moreover enhanced by the different treatment of large institutions, which include the applicants, as compared with small and medium institutions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the principle of equal treatment. In that regard, the applicants claim that they are directly and heavily penalised by the provisions which the contested decision implements owing to the calculation methods of both the basic contribution and of the risk factor as defined therein. According to the applicants, those criteria do not reflect their actual size or their real risk. The manifest infringement of the principle of equality stemming directly from the provisions is moreover enhanced by the different treatment of large institutions, which include the applicants, as compared with small and medium institutions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicants, the infringement, also manifest, of the principle of proportionality by the provisions which the contested decision implements stems automatically from the infringement of the principle of equal treatment. In particular, as the SRF mechanism is based on fixing an overall target level of predetermined contributions, inequality in sharing those contributions between the institutions automatically leads to disproportionate payments and therefore to infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicants, the infringement, also manifest, of the principle of proportionality by the provisions which the contested decision implements stems automatically from the infringement of the principle of equal treatment. In particular, as the SRF mechanism is based on fixing an overall target level of predetermined contributions, inequality in sharing those contributions between the institutions automatically leads to disproportionate payments and therefore to infringement of the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty. The infringement of the principle of legal certainty by the provisions which the contested decision implements relates to both the unpredictability of the calculation methods of the contribution payable by the institution and to the fact that that contribution depends on the situation of an institution compared with that of other institutions rather than on its situation and its overall risk profile as such. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty. The infringement of the principle of legal certainty by the provisions which the contested decision implements relates to both the unpredictability of the calculation methods of the contribution payable by the institution and to the fact that that contribution depends on the situation of an institution compared with that of other institutions rather than on its situation and its overall risk profile as such.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration. The infringement of the principle of good administration is characterised by the contested decision, in that it does not rely on, for the calculation of the risk-adjusted variable, all the risk criteria set out in the Delegated Regulation, although the Single Resolution Board should have been able, four years after the entry into force of the contributions mechanism, to apply all those criteria. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration. The infringement of the principle of good administration is characterised by the contested decision, in that it does not rely on, for the calculation of the risk-adjusted variable, all the risk criteria set out in the Delegated Regulation, although the Single Resolution Board should have been able, four years after the entry into force of the contributions mechanism, to apply all those criteria.

---