Case T-751/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v ECB
Date: 2016-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: banking policy, competence of the institution, credit institution, financial control, financial legislation, investment company, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2017006EN.01004202.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/42





Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v ECB
(Case T-751/16)
(2017/C 006/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Grégoire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/92) concerning the application made by Crédit Mutuel for authorisation to exclude exposure to the public sector from the leverage ratio calculation, in accordance with Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, as regards Crédit Mutuel and all the entities of the group subject to the leverage ratio;










—


order the European Central Bank 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 that the contested decision is ultra vires. According to the applicant, the European Central Bank (ECB) is competent only to verify compliance with the conditions governing whether an establishment may be granted a derogation from the leverage ratio calculation rules in order to ensure the practical application of those conditions, without bolstering them or assessing their relevance, and is competent only to apply those conditions as they have been definitively and precisely laid down by the Commission, on the basis of its exclusive powers, by means of a delegated regulation designed to take into account the specific nature of the banking and financial industry in the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, which is presented in the alternative to the preceding plea, alleging that the ECB committed an error of law in the contested decision. According to the applicant, exposure to public sector entities, when treated in the same way as exposure at central government level, should be regarded as representing zero risk where they are denominated in the domestic currency of that government.










3.


Third plea in law, which is presented in the alternative to the two preceding pleas, alleging manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested decision is manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objectives pursued by prudential requirements, having regard to the characteristics of regulated savings, and is manifestly disproportionate due to the negative consequences that will result for the establishment in question.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the principle of sound administration in so far as the ECB failed to examine or take into account all the relevant factors in the present case.