# C_2017318EN.01002201.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/22

---

Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB

(Case T-494/17)

(2017/C 318/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Messina, F. Isgrò and A. Dentoni Litta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Single Resolution Board Decision No SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016, as well as all subsequent decisions of that Board on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia adopted the following measures: No 1547337/16 of 29 December 2016; No 0333162/17 of 14 March 2017; No 0334520/17 of 14 March 2017; No 1249264/15 of 24 November 2015; No 1262091/15 of 26 November 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Single Resolution Board Decision No SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016, as well as all subsequent decisions of that Board on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia adopted the following measures: No 1547337/16 of 29 December 2016; No 0333162/17 of 14 March 2017; No 0334520/17 of 14 March 2017; No 1249264/15 of 24 November 2015; No 1262091/15 of 26 November 2015;

| — | order the payment of compensation to ICCREA Banca for the damage caused to it by the Single Resolution Board when determining the contributions owed by the applicant in the form of higher rates paid by ICCREA Banca; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation to ICCREA Banca for the damage caused to it by the Single Resolution Board when determining the contributions owed by the applicant in the form of higher rates paid by ICCREA Banca;

| — | in the alternative, and in the event that the above claims are rejected, declare Article 5(1)(a) and (f) (or, as the case may be, the Regulation in its entirety) invalid, as being contrary to the basic principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, and in the event that the above claims are rejected, declare Article 5(1)(a) and (f) (or, as the case may be, the Regulation in its entirety) invalid, as being contrary to the basic principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality;

| — | in any event, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs occasioned by the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs occasioned by the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Single Resolution Board Decision No SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016 and against all subsequent decisions of that Board which constituted the basis for the measures of the Banca d’Italia seeking contributions to the Single Resolution Fund.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to communicate the measures, (ii) infringement of the principle of transparency, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 15 TFEU, and (iv) infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that it was at no time placed in a position to be aware of the decisions of the Single Resolution Board, or to understand the merely material role of the Banca d’Italia in the enforcement of those decisions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to communicate the measures, (ii) infringement of the principle of transparency, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 15 TFEU, and (iv) infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that it was at no time placed in a position to be aware of the decisions of the Single Resolution Board, or to understand the merely material role of the Banca d’Italia in the enforcement of those decisions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63 (1) when determining the amount of the contributions owed by the applicant by not having taken intragroup liabilities into consideration. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63 (1) when determining the amount of the contributions owed by the applicant by not having taken intragroup liabilities into consideration.

1

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, thereby resulting in double counting. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, thereby resulting in double counting.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging unlawful conduct of an EU body and claiming non-contractual liability under Article 268 TFEU.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that the conduct of the Single Resolution Board meets all the relevant conditions for non-contractual liability under EU case-law, namely unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the actual existence of damage, and the presence of a causal link between the adopted conduct and the alleged damage. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging unlawful conduct of an EU body and claiming non-contractual liability under Article 268 TFEU.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that the conduct of the Single Resolution Board meets all the relevant conditions for non-contractual liability under EU case-law, namely unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the actual existence of damage, and the presence of a causal link between the adopted conduct and the alleged damage.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, in the alternative and incidentally, alleging that Regulation 2015/63 is in breach of the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment and is consequently inapplicable.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that a possible contradiction between Regulation 2015/63 and the situation of the applicant would be in breach of the aforementioned principles to the extent that persons in the same factual situation as ICCREA would be subject to reductions of contributions, with a resulting unlawful deterioration of the applicant’s situation, with the consequence that similar situations would be treated differently. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, in the alternative and incidentally, alleging that Regulation 2015/63 is in breach of the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment and is consequently inapplicable.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that a possible contradiction between Regulation 2015/63 and the situation of the applicant would be in breach of the aforementioned principles to the extent that persons in the same factual situation as ICCREA would be subject to reductions of contributions, with a resulting unlawful deterioration of the applicant’s situation, with the consequence that similar situations would be treated differently.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15 TFEU, impossibility for the applicant to have knowledge of the decisions of the Single Resolution Board, and requesting an order for the production of those documents.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that it has still not been placed in a position to have knowledge of the decisions for 2015, 2016 and 2017 relating to its position, conduct which is patently at variance with Article 15 TFEU and with the right to access documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15 TFEU, impossibility for the applicant to have knowledge of the decisions of the Single Resolution Board, and requesting an order for the production of those documents.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that it has still not been placed in a position to have knowledge of the decisions for 2015, 2016 and 2017 relating to its position, conduct which is patently at variance with Article 15 TFEU and with the right to access documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium.

---

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

1

ex ante

---