EN
C 451/24
Official Journal of the European Union
28.11.2022
Action brought on 12 October 2022 — Portigon v SRB (Case T-641/22) (2022/C 451/28) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind and F. Geber, lawyers) Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the defendant’s decision of 25 July 2022 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (ref.: SRB/ES/2022/41), in so far as the decision concerns the applicant; — stay the proceedings in accordance with Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-413/18, (1) T-481/19, (2) T-339/20, (3) T-424/20 (4) and T-360/21 (5) or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion; — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following nine pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (6) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (7) and the TFEU through increases in the amounts of the contributions to be paid by the applicant to the fund. — The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since a mandatory contribution for institutions under resolution is not provided for under Regulation No 806/2014 and Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.
(8) — The legislature was not entitled to base the obligation to pay a contribution on Article 114 TFEU owing to the lack of relevance to the internal market.
Harmonised rules governing contributions throughout the European Union neither facilitate the exercise of fundamental freedoms nor remedy appreciable distortions of competition in relation to institutions that withdraw from the market. — The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution, since the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system. — Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (9) infringes Article 114 TFEU and Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU as an essential element relating to the calculation of the contribution (second paragraph of Article 290 (1) TFEU). 2.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the ground that the calculation procedure does not allow for a complete statement of reasons for the contested decision.
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is invalid in part. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter, since, in view of the special situation of the applicant, the contested decision is contrary to the general principle of equality and to the fundamental freedom to conduct a business.