Case T-477/23: Action brought on 31 July 2023 — DZ Bank v SRB
Date: 2023-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, financial requirements, financing method, financing plan, official language








C_2023338EN.01003401.xml










25.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/34






Action brought on 31 July 2023 — DZ Bank v SRB
(Case T-477/23)
(2023/C 338/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the joint decision of 6 April 2023 (RC/JD/2022/22) determining the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs.




In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the joint decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation No 1, (2) since it is not worded in German, which is the official language chosen by the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the joint decision infringes Article 12d(8) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, since it does not contain a comprehensive and sufficiently detailed and specific statement of reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the joint decision infringes the fourth subparagraph of Article 12d(3) in conjunction with Article 27(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, since it determines the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities as including liabilities from pass-through promotional loans.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the joint decision infringes Article 12c(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, since it determines and provides the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities as including liabilities financed through pass-through promotional loans, the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities, at least in so far as they are excessive on account of the incorrect inclusion of liabilities from pass-through promotional loans, must be met by subordinated instruments.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the fourth subparagraph of Article 12d(3) in conjunction with Article 27(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Article 12c(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 infringe higher-ranking law (Articles 16, 17, 20 and 52 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights), (3) at least in so far as they authorise the inclusion of liabilities from pass-through promotional loans in total liabilities including own funds in the determination of the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities.






(1)  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).

(2)  Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

(3)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.