C 380/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
3.10.2022
GENERAL COURT Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (Case T-396/22) (2022/C 380/10) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers) Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should: — declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of its action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law: 1.
First plea in law: The decision infringes Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, (2) because it is not worded in German, which is the language chosen by the applicant. 2.
Second plea in law: The decision infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, because it contains instances of failure to state reasons, in particular with regard to the use by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers conferred by law, it does not disclose the data of other institutions and a judicial review of the decision is practically impossible. 3.
Third plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 53 of the Charter, because the defendant erroneously determined the annual target level; in the alternative, Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 infringe higher-ranking law. 4.
Fourth plea in law: The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (3) infringes higher-ranking law because it makes an objectively inappropriate and disproportionate distinction between the members of an Institutional Protection Scheme (‘IPS’) and allows a relative weight to be assigned to the IPS indicator.