Case T-8/25: Action brought on 8 January 2025 – Deutsche Bank v SRB
Date: 2025-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU)








C_202501244EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1244


3.3.2025






Action brought on 8 January 2025 – Deutsche Bank v SRB


(Case T-8/25)

(C/2025/1244)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Bank AG (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 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 that decision (‘New 2021 Decision’) (SRB/ES/2024/44) including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;










—


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 eight pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that Article 6 of, and Annex I, Step 2, to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) infringe higher-ranking law, on the ground that the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it, that those rules, which fail to meet the requirement to take full account of the facts and infringe Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) are based on manifest errors of assessment and disregard the principles of the Meroni case-law. (3)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (4) and Article 8(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (5) infringe the applicable primary law, on the ground that Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 does not state reasons in accordance with Article 291(2) TFEU and that Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 exceeds the limits drawn by Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in conjunction with Article 291 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Article 69(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not covered by the harmonisation powers in respect of the internal market pursuant to Article 114 TFEU, on the ground that the amount of the ex ante contribution to the Single Resolution Fund is not connected to the risk to which the Single Resolution Fund is exposed on account of the determination and ongoing adjustment of the final target level on the basis of covered deposits; Article 69(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU and the second sentence of Article 52(1), in conjunction with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision fails to comply with the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that it contains gaps in the reasoning.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, in so far as the annual target level was set at more than 12.5 % of the forecast target level of the Single Resolution Fund.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes higher-ranking law on account of manifest errors of assessment in determining the risk indicators of risk pillar IV.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 6(6)(a)(iv) and Article 6(6)(b)(ii) and the first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, on the ground that the defendant did not implement the requirements of Article 6(6)(a)(iv) and Article 6(6)(b)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 when determining the risk indicators under Article 6(1)(d), Article 6(5)(a) and Article 6(6) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 6(2)(a), Article 9(1) and the first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, on the ground that the defendant did not apply the risk indicator ‘own funds and eligible liabilities held by the institution in excess of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities’.






(1)  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).

(2)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

(3)  Judgment of 13 June 1958, Meroni v High Authority, 10/56, EU:C:1958:8.

(4)  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).

(5)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1244/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)