CELEX: 62016TN0466
Language: en
Date: 2016-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-466/16: Action brought on 23 August 2016 — NRW. Bank v SRB

10.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 371/25
            
         Action brought on 23 August 2016 — NRW. Bank v SRB
   (Case T-466/16)
   (2016/C 371/28)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendant’s decision concerning the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31 December 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103(2) and (7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) and of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (2)
               
               The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision concerning its annual contribution is unlawful because it takes account, for the purpose of reducing the contribution, only of the applicant’s development business and not of its auxiliary development business as well. As a result, the applicant’s annual contribution to the restructuring fund for the contribution year from 1 January to 31. December 2016 has been set too high.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, which, in accordance with those legislative acts, are to be interpreted as meaning that they also give preference to auxiliary development business.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, the unlawfulness of the regulations giving effect to Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.
               In this regard, the applicant argues that if an interpretation of the implementing regulations in accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not possible, the implementing regulations are, in that respect, unlawful. Consequently, the defendant’s decision based on those implementing regulations is also unlawful.
            
         
      (1)  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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).
   
      (2)  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).