Case T-667/24: Action brought on 20 December 2024 – UniCredit Bank v SRB
Date: 2024-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, legality, right to an effective remedy








C_202500925EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/925


17.2.2025






Action brought on 20 December 2024 – UniCredit Bank v SRB


(Case T-667/24)

(C/2025/925)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: UniCredit Bank GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Kruis, N. Bartmann and L. Koukounakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 25 October 2024 on the re-adoption of the decision on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund concerning the institutions mentioned in Annex I to this decision (SRB/ES/2024/44) including the annexes, in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) because the 12.5 % limit for the annual target level laid down in that regulation is disregarded.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because it is based on Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81, (2) in particular, Article 8(1), (4) and (5) thereof, as well as Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which are themselves unlawful.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because it is based on Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, (3) which itself infringes Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU (4) in conjunction with Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, as well as Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because it is based on Article 11 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, which itself infringes Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU in conjunction with Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, as well as Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because it is based on the provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 adopted on the basis of Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU and Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which themselves infringe the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 290(1) TFEU.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because it failed to take into account the relevant factual and legal basis; this also constitutes an infringement of Article 69(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 69(1), Article 70(1), (2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, the second subparagraph of Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU and Article 4(1), Articles 5 to 9 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 in that the defendant fails to refer to the actual and most recent data of the institutions both in determining the target level and in the relative categorisation of the institutions by comparing them with the other institutions.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Articles 6, 7 and 20(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 in that the defendant failed to take into account the risk indicator of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (‘MREL’) or the sub-indicators ‘complexity’ and ‘resolvability’ in connection with the calculation of the risk adjustment multiplier.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that if Article 20 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 were to allow the (sub-) risk indicators complexity and resolvability to be disregarded, Article 20 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 would be incompatible with higher-ranking rules of law and not applicable.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because the defendant miscalculated the applicant’s contribution.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263(2) TFEU because it does not contain sufficient reasoning for the purpose of Article 296 TFEU.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the decision also infringes the right to an effective remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (5) on account of the lack of sufficient reasoning.










13.


Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because it is based on the second subparagraph of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Article 103(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, which are unlawful because they led to a secret calculation, thereby preventing effective legal protection for the institutions concerned.










14.


Fourteenth plea in law, alleging that the decision is unlawful because the defendant unlawfully ordered that the share of possible IPCs (‘irrevocable payment commitments’) is limited to 15 % of the individual contribution and that such IPCs are exclusively backed by collateral in the form of cash for the 2021 contribution period.






(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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

(4)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/925/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)