Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2025:356
Date: 2025-05-15
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Economic and monetary policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible

Appeal brought on 20 December 2023 by Sberbank of Russia PAO against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2023 in Case T-527/22, Sberbank v SRB (Case C-793/23 P) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: Sberbank of Russia PAO (represented by: D. Rovetta, avocat, M. Campa, M. Moretto, M. Pirovano, V. Villante, avvocati) Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: set aside the order under appeal and declare the action, seeking annulment (i) of Decision SRB/EES/2022/19 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 1 March 2022 not to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank Europe AG, within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/20141 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, and (ii) of Valuation Report 1 in respect of Sberbank Europe AG of 27 February 2022, drawn up by the SRB, at first instance admissible; refer the case back to the General Court for examining the substance of the appellant’s action; order the Single Resolution Board (SRB) to bear the costs of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance. Pleas in law and main arguments The appellant relies on three main grounds of appeal. First, the General Court infringed Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU and committed several errors of law and distortions of facts and evidence in deciding that the legal position of the appellant is not directly affected by the Contested Decisions, failing also to state reasons and to respond to several crucial arguments, supported by evidence, raised by the appellant. Second, the General Court infringed article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU and misinterpreted the legal concept of “property”. The General Court misconstrued the legal definition of “banking Group and Resolution Group” as well as of “shareholder” and “unique shareholder”. As a subordinate: the General Court breached article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU in considering that “economic effects” on the appellant were not enough to establish direct concern. Third, the General Court committed an error of law - breach of Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014 read in conjunction with Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - the General Court wrongly interpreted the annulment claim and form of order sought by the appellant. ____________ 1 OJ 2014, L 225, p. 1.