Case T-647/21: Action brought on 1 October 2021 — Sberbank Europe v ECB
Date: 2021-10-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, banking supervision, discretionary power, financial risk, financial supervision, interest, ownership, principle of proportionality, sanction (EU)








C_2021481EN.01004001.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/40






Action brought on 1 October 2021 — Sberbank Europe v ECB
(Case T-647/21)
(2021/C 481/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Fellner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 2 August 2021 (1); and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the prohibition of double punishment pursuant to Article 50 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights (‘CFR’) of the European Union and Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 49 of the CFR and Article 7 of ECHR by imposing a penalty exceeding the amount limits laid down in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (2).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 17 CFR and Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good faith, because the defendant violated the method of setting administrative pecuniary penalties pursuant to Articles 18(1) and (7) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 6 of the ECHR.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the amount of limits for sanctions pursuant to Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that Article 97 of the Austrian Banking Act (‘BWG’) is not applicable if no advantage is gained or no loss is avoided by exceeding the large exposure limit.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s ability to impose absorption interest on the applicant is time-barred pursuant to Article 97 BWG in connection with Article 395 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 97(1) BWG in connection with Article 30(a) BWG and Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that the applicant had no intention to exceed limits to large exposure pursuant to Article 395 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (3).










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant gained no advantage or avoided any loss to be absorbed by exceeding the large exposure limits in the contested period.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its discretion by not granting to the applicant the exception under Article 396(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.






(1)  No ECB-SSM-2021-ATSBE-7 — ESA-2020-00000051.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63-89).

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1-337).