CELEX: 62020TN0431
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-431/20: Action brought on 9 July 2020 — UniCredit Bank v SRB

24.8.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 279/61
            
         
      Action brought on 9 July 2020 — UniCredit Bank v SRB
      (Case T-431/20)
      (2020/C 279/76)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: UniCredit Bank AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: F. Schäfer, H. Großerichter and F. Kruis, 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 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including annexes, in so far as they concern the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration, since the contested decision and Annexes I and II thereto did not contain an adequate statement of reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the right to sound administration under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, since the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the contested decision, which contains an individual measure adversely affecting the applicant.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy under Article 47(1) of the Charter, since it is in practice impossible to carry out an effective judicial review of the accuracy of the decision’s content.