Case T-116/24: Action brought on 26 February 2024 — DZ Bank v SRB
Date: 2024-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, admissibility, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, discretionary power, financial solvency, use of languages








C_202402458EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2458


8.4.2024





Action brought on 26 February 2024 — DZ Bank v SRB
(Case T-116/24)
(C/2024/2458)
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:






—


vary the final decision of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board of 15 December 2023 in Joined Cases 2/2023 and 3/2023 so that the case is referred back to the Single Resolution Board;










—


in the alternative, annul the final decision of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board of 15 December 2023 in Joined Cases 2/2023 and 3/2023;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the final decision infringes Article 85(3) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) on the ground that, in breach of that provision, it dismissed the appeal in Case 3/2023 as inadmissible.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the final decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation No 1, (2) in so far as it contains an error of law consisting in the rejection of the first ground of appeal in Case 2/2023, regarding the failure, in the joint decision, to respect the applicant’s choice of the German language.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the final decision infringes Article 12d(8) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, on the ground that, in the examination of the second ground of appeal in Case 2/2023, it contains an error of law consisting in the finding that the joint decision contains a complete and sufficiently detailed and concrete statement of reasons for the determination of the level of the MREL (3)-LRE (4) and the subordination requirement.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the final decision infringes the fourth subparagraph of Article 12d(3), read in conjunction with Article 27(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the first sentence of Article 12c(4) thereof, on the ground that it contains an error of law consisting in the finding that the pass-through liabilities are to be considered to form part of the total liabilities and own funds for the purposes of those provisions.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the final decision infringes the fourth subparagraph of Article 12d(3) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, on the ground that it misinterprets the extent of the discretion conferred under that provision and the extent of the burden of proof on the applicant when asserting manifest errors of assessment as well as disregards a manifest error of assessment on the part of the SRB.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the final decision infringes the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 12c(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, on the ground that it disregards manifest errors of assessment on the part of the SRB in the setting of the subordination requirement vis-à-vis the applicant.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the fourth subparagraph of Article 12d(3), read in conjunction with Article 27(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Article 12c(4) thereof, infringes higher-ranking rules of law (Articles 16, 17, 20 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), (5) in so far as the liabilities arising from pass-through promotional loans form part of the total liabilities including own funds when determining the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities and in so far as the SRB does not have any discretion not to take them into account.






(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 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

(3)  Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities.

(4)  Leverage Ratio Exposure.

(5)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2458/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)