3.10.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 380/15
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 The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB (Case T-404/22) (2022/C 380/18) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Deutsche Kreditbank AG (Berlin, 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 seven 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.