Case T-182/22: Action brought on 11 April 2022 — Deutsche Bank and Others v ECB
Date: 2022-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, financial requirements, financial supervision, infringement of EU law, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2022244EN.01003801.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/38






Action brought on 11 April 2022 — Deutsche Bank and Others v ECB
(Case T-182/22)
(2022/C 244/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), BHW Bausparkasse AG (Hameln, Germany), norisbank GmbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


partially annul the decision of the ECB of 2 February 2022, including Annexes I and II, with regard to the requirements imposed on the applicants pursuant to paragraph 1.3 of the decision; and










—


order the ECB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Union law by exceeding the powers conferred on it in Article 4 and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (1) and breaching basic principles of Union law, as there is no provision in Union law permitting paragraph 1.3 of the contested decision concerning the prudential treatment of irrevocable payment commitments (‘IPC Requirement’), the ECB failed to carry out an individual and methodologically correct examination of the applicants’ situation and the IPC Requirement is based on inaccurate facts and several manifest errors of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached the principle of proportionality by requiring a deduction of the full amount of irrevocable payment commitments from the applicants’ Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) on a consolidated and/or individual level, without taking into account the individual situation of the applicants and setting a deduction appropriate to the applicants’ individual risk profile and level of liquidity, and without properly appreciating mitigating factors.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of good administration and legal certainty and erred in applying Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 by imposing the IPC Requirement on the first and third applicants on an individual level. The first and third applicants have been granted waivers according to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2) and are, therefore, exempt from a prudential capital requirement on an individual level.






(1)  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).

(2)  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 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).