Case C-548/24 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 2024 by Crédit agricole SA and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 June 2024 in Case T-188/22, Crédit agricole and Others v ECB
Date: 2024-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, abuse of power, bank resolution, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial supervision, judicial review, right to justice








C_202405614EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5614


30.9.2024






Appeal brought on 13 August 2024 by Crédit agricole SA and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 June 2024 in Case T-188/22, Crédit agricole and Others v ECB


(Case C-548/24 P)

(C/2024/5614)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Crédit agricole SA and 63 other parties (complete list annexed to the appeal) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi, C. Duriez, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the present appeal admissible and well founded;










—


set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 June 2024, Crédit agricole SA and Others v European Central Bank (T-188/22, EU:T:2024:355), and give final judgment itself on the dispute at issue;










—


grant the forms of order sought by the applicants at first instance and, consequently, annul in part the ECB’s Decisions ECB-SMM-2022-FRCAG-5 of 2 February 2022 and ECB-SSM-2022-FRCAG-123 of 21 December 2022;










—


order the ECB to pay all the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds of appeal:
First, a ground of appeal alleging that the General Court erred in law and infringed Articles 4 and 16 of the SSM Regulation (1) by failing to hold that the ECB exceeded the limits of its Pillar 2 powers. That ground is divided into two parts:






—


the General Court failed to find that the identification of the risk and the resulting analysis are not based on the appellants’ own situation;










—


the General Court failed to find that the issue of the coverage of the risk identified was not the subject of a genuine analysis of the appellants’ individual situation.




Second, a ground of appeal alleging that the General Court misunderstood the scope of its power of judicial review, infringed the principle of effective judicial review and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. That ground is divided into two parts:






—


the General Court neither sufficiently nor correctly analysed the SREP decisions produced as part of a measure of organisation of procedure by which the General Court ordered the ECB to disclose all of the extracts of the SREP decisions dealing with ‘the examination of the impact of irrevocable payment commitments on the situation of the credit institutions’;










—


the General Court failed to assess the reality of the individual analysis submitted by the ECB by confining itself to a purely formal examination of that analysis.




Third, a ground of appeal alleging that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a failure to state reasons and contradictory reasoning.


(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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5614/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)