Case T-422/24: Action brought on 13 August 2024 – Société générale and SG Option Europe v SRB
Date: 2024-08-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan








C_202405649EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5649


30.9.2024






Action brought on 13 August 2024 – Société générale and SG Option Europe v SRB


(Case T-422/24)

(C/2024/5649)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Société générale (Paris, France), SG Option Europe (Puteaux, France) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and C. Duriez, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, Decision SRB/ES/2024/20 of 11 June 2024 concerning the re-adoption of the decision on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants put forward five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law with regard to the setting of the adjustment coefficient. The applicants allege an error of law in that the SRB infringed Article 70(2) of the SRM Regulation (1) by fixing the total amount of ex ante contributions to the SRF at a level that is higher than the cap of 12.5 % of the final target level established by that article.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicants allege a breach of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the SRB fails to describe clearly the method used for the calculation of the annual target level and to justify the setting of the coefficient of 1.35 %.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of law with regard to the restriction on the use of irrevocable payment commitments (‘IPCs’). The applicants allege an error of law in that the SRB relies on a misinterpretation of the provisions regulating the use of IPCs in order, first, to restrict the proportion of IPCs below the ceiling of 30 % of ex ante contributions without having the competence to do so and, second, to limit the type of collateral to cash only, thereby undermining the effectiveness of those provisions.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicants allege a manifest error of assessment since the pro-cyclicality and liquidity risks relied on by the SRB in order to limit the use of IPCs are unfounded, particularly in the light of the specific characteristics of the IPCs and the context of their use.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicants allege a breach of the obligation to state reasons on the ground that the contested decision does not state in a precise and detailed manner why it was necessary, first, to fix the ceiling on the use of IPCs at 22.5 % and, second, to accept as collateral cash only.






(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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5649/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)