EN
C 451/18
Official Journal of the European Union
28.11.2022
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the SRB’s decision dated 5 July 2022 (SRB/EES/2022/36) by which the SRB determined the expenses in connection with the resolution of the Slovenian subsidiary of the applicant and instructed the Bank of Slovenia to deduct such expenses from the purchase price payable to the applicant; — order the SRB to bear the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is procedurally and substantively vitiated because of the following specific defects pertaining to the contested decision: — The contested decision violates Article 22(6) SRMR and Article 28(2) SRMR (1) because (a) the costs do not constitute reasonable expenses properly incurred in connection with the use of the resolution tools or powers; (b) the SRB did not take an appropriate decision with respect to the manner in which the costs are recovered by it and should have imposed the costs on the institution under resolution and therefore indirectly the purchaser; (c) Article 28(2) SRMR only authorises the SRB to give instructions to the national resolution authorities as to aspects of the execution of the resolution scheme whereas the costs referenced by the contested decision are costs associated with the procedure leading to the resolution decision; and (d) the SRMR does not authorise the SRB to obtain legal or other advice at the expense of the supervised entity or its shareholders. — The involvement of external advisors violates Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides for a right of every person to have his or her affairs handled by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and not external advisors. — The costs imposed on the applicant by the contested decision would in any case be covered by the regular contributions to the administrative expenditure of the SRB by each supervised institution. — It follows e contrario from the special rules permitting the recovery of expenses for legal counsel in certain circumstances that such costs cannot generally be recovered. — The costs were not properly and reasonably incurred. — Certain costs concern matters of Slovenian law.
Only the national authorities and courts are responsible for the interpretation and application of Slovenian law. — Certain costs concern sanction matters which are also outside the competence of the SRB. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on a resolution decision, which is procedurally and substantively illegal and is currently being reviewed in case T-523/22.
(1)
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).
Action brought on 4 October 2022 — CMB v Commission (Case T-619/22) (2022/C 451/22) Language of the case: Dutch Parties Applicant: CMB Colorex Master Batches BV (Helmond, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Wolf, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission