Order;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2025:602
Date: 2025-06-11
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Subject matter: Economic and monetary policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Action for annulment
Origin: Germany

summary of that plan. The applicant then brought two separate appeals, (2) against the contested decision and against Decision SRB/EES/2022/215, before the SRB’s Appeal Panel. The Appeal Panel dismissed those appeals on the ground that the first was unfounded and that the second was inadmissible. The applicant brought two separate actions for annulment before the Court directed against the contested decision and the decision of the Appeal Panel. (3) In the present case, the SRB submits a plea of inadmissibility, based, inter alia, on the fact that the applicant is not an addressee of the contested decision and that it is not directly and individually concerned by it, with the result that it does not have standing to bring proceedings. Findings of the Court In the first place, the Court examines the applicant’s status as an addressee of the contested decision. It rejects the applicant’s argument that that status is a result of the SRB’s obligation (4) to communicate the joint decisions after their adoption. The joint decision is provided to ‘the resolution entity by its resolution authority’. (5) As regards the parent company of the EU group that is not itself a resolution entity of the same resolution group, the joint decision is to be provided to it (6) by the resolution authority of the resolution entity. It follows that the second subparagraph of Article 45h(1) of Directive 2014/59 does not provide that the author of the joint decision – namely, in the present case, the SRB and the Hungarian resolution authority, as co-authors of that decision – is to notify it to the entities concerned, but entrusts different resolution authorities, within their respective powers, with ‘providing’ that decision. In the present case, it is only by email of 22 May 2023 that the SRB, as the group-level resolution authority, (7) sent the applicant, as the parent company of the EU group, the contested decision, whereas the national resolution authorities were already informed before that date. In the second place, the Court recalls the two cumulative criteria to be fulfilled in order for an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person who is not an addressee of the act to be admissible, namely that the contested measure must, first, directly affect the legal situation of the individual and, secondly, leave no discretion to its addressees who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, without the need for intermediate rules. As regards the first criterion, the Court examines the substance of the act in question and assesses its effects on the basis of objective criteria, such as the content of that act, taking into account, as appropriate, the context in which it was adopted and the powers of the institution that adopted the act. As regards the joint decision relating to a cross-border group within the meaning of Article 2(1)(27) of Directive 2014/59, the Court takes particular account of the system established by the EU legislature in order to determine the MREL for each entity of the group within the European Union. In the present case, the contested decision and Decision SRB/EES/2022/215 determine the MREL for the entities of the group to which the applicant belongs. However, although the contested decision represents the agreement concluded in the context of the European Union as a whole between the SRB and the Hungarian resolution authority, namely the National Bank of Hungary, pursuant to Directive 2014/59, Decision SRB/EES/2022/215, adopted on the basis of Regulation No 806/2014, gives concrete expression to that agreement within the banking union alone. Thus, the contested decision has a binding effect only on the resolution authorities ‘concerned’, (8) that is to say those that committed to mutually binding obligations by adopting the joint decision. The present case concerns the SRB and the Hungarian resolution authority. The Court concludes from this that the adoption of the contested decision does not, in itself, have any legal effect within the banking union other than the obligation that the SRB imposes on itself vis-à-vis the Hungarian resolution authority to apply the MREL that it negotiated with that authority. By contrast, as regards Decision SRB/EES/2022/215, the Court notes that, first, the SRB is to determine the MREL that the resolution entities and resolution groups are required to meet at all times (9) and that, secondly, the SRB is to address its determination to the national resolution authorities, (10) which are to implement the instructions of the SRB. (11) In the present case, the Court states that, by adopting Decision SRB/EES/2022/215, which, in its second citation, refers, inter alia, to Articles 12 to 12k and 29 of Regulation No 806/2014, the SRB adopted a decision under the abovementioned articles by which it determined, within the banking union, the MREL for the group to which the applicant belongs. Consequently, since the contested decision does not directly affect the applicant’s legal situation, the Court upholds the plea of inadmissibility submitted by the SRB based on the applicant’s lack of standing to bring proceedings. 1 In accordance with Article 88 of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190). 2 Under Article 85(3) of 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). 3 Case registered under the number T‑116/24. 4 Laid down in point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 45h(1) of Directive 2014/59 and in Article 92(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1075 of 23 March 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the content of recovery plans, resolution plans and group resolution plans, the minimum criteria that the competent authority is to assess as regards recovery plans and group recovery plans, the conditions for group financial support, the requirements for independent valuers, the contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers, the procedures and contents of notification requirements and of notice of suspension and the operational functioning of the resolution colleges (OJ 2016 L 184, p. 1). 5 According to point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 45h(1) of Directive 2014/59. 6 In accordance with point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 45h(1) of Directive 2014/59. 7 In accordance with point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 45h(1) of Directive 2014/59. 8 In accordance with Article 45h(7) of Directive 2014/59. 9 According to Article 12(1) of Regulation No 806/2014. 10 According to Article 12(5) of Regulation No 806/2014. 11 In accordance with Article 29 of Regulation No 806/2014.