Action brought on 12 October 2022 — Portigon v SRB

(Case T-641/22)

(2022/C 451/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind and F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 25 July 2022 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (ref.: SRB/ES/2022/41), in so far as the decision concerns the applicant;

— stay the proceedings in accordance with Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-413/18, (1) T-481/19, (2) T-339/20, (3) T-424/20 (4) and T-360/21 (5) or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following nine pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (6) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (7) and the TFEU through increases in the amounts of the contributions to be paid by the applicant to the fund. — The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since a mandatory contribution for institutions under resolution is not provided for under Regulation No 806/2014 and Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (8) — The legislature was not entitled to base the obligation to pay a contribution on Article 114 TFEU owing to the lack of relevance to the internal market. Harmonised rules governing contributions throughout the European Union neither facilitate the exercise of fundamental freedoms nor remedy appreciable distortions of competition in relation to institutions that withdraw from the market. — The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system. — Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (9) infringes Article 114 TFEU and Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU as an essential element relating to the calculation of the contribution (second paragraph of Article 290(1) TFEU).

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the ground that the calculation procedure does not allow for a complete statement of reasons for the contested decision. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid in part.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter, since, in view of the special situation of the applicant, the contested decision is contrary to the general principle of equality and to the fundamental freedom to conduct a business.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, since retroactive effect of the contested decision is not permissible.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the defendant did not hear the applicant before adopting the contested decision and did not state adequate reasons for its decision.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the defendant’s creation of three categories within the ‘membership of an institutional protection scheme’ indicator is not comprehensible.

7. Seventh plea in law alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU, since the defendant, in calculating the amount of the contribution, should have excluded risk-free liabilities from the relevant liabilities.

8. Eighth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant wrongly calculated the applicant’s contribution on the basis of a gross approach with regard to derivative contracts.

9. Ninth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in conjunction with Article 6(8)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, since the defendant wrongly regarded the applicant as an institution undergoing reorganisation.

(1) OJ 2018 C 294, p. 41.

(2) OJ 2019 C 305, p. 60.

(3) OJ 2020 C 240, p. 34.

(4) OJ 2020 C 279, p. 70.

(5) OJ 2021 C 320, p. 53.

(6) 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).

(7) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(8) 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).

(9) 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).