CELEX: 62018TN0386
Language: en
Date: 2018-06-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-386/18: Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB

201808030782050872018/C 294/703862018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180627565721Case T-386/18: Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5610120180627EN0070561572Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-386/18)2018/C 294/70Language of the case: Italian
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Messina, F. Isgrò and A. Dentoni Litta, lawyers)
   
      Defendants: European Commission, Single Resolution Board
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            annul, under Article 263 TFEU, Single Resolution Board Decision No SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03 of 12 April 2018 and, as appropriate, the annexes thereto, as well as any subsequent decisions of the Single Resolution Board, even those of which the applicant is not aware, on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia adopted measures No 0517765/18 of 27 April 2018 and No 0646641/18 of 28 May 2018;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the payment of compensation under Article 268 TFEU to ICCREA Banca for the damage caused to it, consisting of the higher rates paid, by the Single Resolution Board when determining the contributions owed by the applicant;
         
      
            —
         
         
            in the alternative, and in the event that the above claims are rejected, declare Article 5(1)(a) and (f) (or, as the case may be, the Regulation in its entirety) invalid, as being contrary to the basic principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality;
         
      
            —
         
         
            in any event, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs occasioned by the present proceedings.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The present action is brought against Single Resolution Board Decision No SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03 of 12 April 2018 and the annexes thereto, as well as any subsequent decisions of the Single Resolution Board, even those of which the applicant is not aware, on the basis of which the contributions under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (
         1
      ) were determined in regard to the applicant.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63 when determining the amount of the contributions owed by the applicant by not having taken intragroup liabilities into consideration.
                  
               
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, thereby resulting in double counting.
                  
               
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful conduct of an EU body giving rise to non-contractual liability under Article 268 TFEU.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The applicant claims in this regard that the conduct of the Single Resolution Board meets all the relevant conditions for non-contractual liability under EU case-law, namely unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the actual existence of damage, and the presence of a causal link between the adopted conduct and the alleged damage.
                  
               
      
            4.
         
         
            Fourth plea in law, in the alternative and incidentally, alleging that Regulation 2015/63 is in breach of the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment and is consequently inapplicable.
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     The applicant claims in this regard that a possible contradiction between Regulation 2015/63 and the situation of the applicant would be in breach of the aforementioned principles to the extent that persons in the same factual situation as ICCREA would be subject to reductions of contributions, leading to an unlawful deterioration of the applicant’s situation, with the consequence that similar situations would be treated differently.
                  
               
      (
         1
      )	Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).