19.4.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 165/35
— declare that the contested provisions of the MREL Policy must be disapplied; — annul the resolution decision; — annul the MREL decision; (2) — order the SRB to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present proceeding.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law in support of its action against the resolution decision and eight pleas in law in support of its action against the MREL decision. 1.
First plea in law concerning the resolution decision, alleging that the SRB has committed errors of law.
The applicant contends that the resolution decision breaches provisions of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of 15 July 2014, (3) and of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1075 of 23 March 2016, (4) as well as the principle of proportionality. 2.
Second plea in law concerning the resolution decision, alleging that the SRB has committed manifest errors of assessment and violated the principle of good administration. — In support of this plea, the applicant submits that the SRB has adopted a uniform ‘bail-in only’ strategy for all Globally Systemically Important Institutions (G-SIIs), disregarding actual resolution cases, and has failed to examine carefully and impartially all the fact-based and reasoned elements put forward by the applicant in its choice of resolution strategy. 3.
Third plea in law concerning the resolution decision, alleging that the SRB expresses a position reflecting a normative choice and thus exceeded its powers under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. 4.
Fourth plea in law concerning the resolution decision, alleging that it has been adopted in violation of the applicant’s right to be heard and in breach of the SRB’s duty to state reasons, by failing to justify its choice of resolution strategy for the applicant. 5.
Fifth plea in law concerning the resolution decision, alleging that certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, applied by the SRB in adopting that decision, violate fundamental rights as well as the TFEU. 6.
First plea in law concerning the MREL decision, alleging that it is based on, and intrinsically linked to, the resolution decision, and would thus no longer stand if that decision is annulled. 7.
Second plea in law concerning the MREL decision, alleging that the SRB has committed an error of law in interpreting and applying the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. — In support of this plea, the applicant claims that the SRB failed to take into account the post-resolution banking group in its MREL determination and the post-resolution combined buffer requirement (CBR) in the determination of the market confidence charge, and has failed to carry out a full assessment of all the relevant elements of the MREL calculation and to state reasons for its calculation of the MREL. 8.
Third plea in law concerning the MREL decision, alleging that the SRB has committed manifest errors of assessment in the determination of the MREL and has breached the principle of good administration, in so far as the SRB failed to carry out a careful and impartial assessment of the BNP Paribas group post-resolution, and in particular to take into account the effect of resolution on the size and business model of the BNP Paribas group. 9.
Fourth plea in law concerning the MREL decision, alleging that the SRB has violated the principle of legitimate expectations, by failing to apply several provisions of its own MREL Policy with respect to MREL adjustments. 10.
Fifth plea in law concerning the MREL decision, alleging that the SRB has breached the principle of proportionality, the right to property and the freedom to conduct business, by setting an amount of MREL that is disproportionate in light of the resolution objectives. 11.
Sixth plea in law concerning the MREL decision, alleging that the SRB has failed to state reasons for that decision, by not including in the decision all the elements necessary in order for the applicant to understand on which basis and according to what methodology the MREL was determined and why such methodology departed from the general methodology set forth in the MREL Policy.