EN
C 380/16
Official Journal of the European Union
3.10.2022
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: Articles 6, 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringe higher-ranking law, inter alia, because they infringe the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner, the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take full account of the facts. 5.
Fifth plea in law: The decision infringes the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality because the underlying risk-adjustment multipliers are not commensurate with the applicant’s risk profile, which is better than average. 6.
Sixth plea in law: The decision infringes Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter as well as the principle of proportionality and the right to good administration on account of obvious errors in the exercise by the defendant of numerous discretionary powers. 7.
Seventh plea in law: The first and second sentences of Article 20(1) of the delegated regulation infringe Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (3) and the requirement to assess contributions in a risk-appropriate manner.
(1) (2) (3)
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).
Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1952-1958, p. 59).
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).
Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Case T-442/22) (2022/C 380/19) Language of the case: Greek Parties Applicant: PU (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer) Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant,