EL 22.1.2020 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 22/19 51 Οι κοινοποιήσεις διοικητικών εισφορών μπορούν να προσβληθούν ενώπιον της επιτροπής προσφυγών του SRB εντός έξι εβδομάδων (41). Κατά των αποφάσεων της επιτροπής προσφυγών μπορεί να ασκηθεί προσφυγή ενώπιον του Γενικού Δικαστηρίου. Το 2018 οι τράπεζες άσκησαν τρεις προσφυγές κατά κοινοποιήσεων διοικητικών εισφορών. Αν και η επιτροπή προσφυγών τις απέρριψε και τις τρεις, σε μία περίπτωση διαπίστωσε ότι το SRB θα έπρεπε να υπολογίσει εκ νέου τις διοικητικές εισφορές που πρέπει να καταβάλει η προσφεύγουσα τράπεζα για το 2018 κατά τον επόμενο κύκλο και να επιστρέψει τα προκύπτοντα ποσά (42). 
EN 22 1 2020 Official Journal of the European Union C 22/19 51 Administrative contribution notices can be appealed at the SRBŐs appeal panel within six weeks (41) Decisions of the appeal panel can be contested in the GC In 2018, banks brought three appeals against administrative contribution notices While the appeal panel dismissed all three appeals, in one case it noted that the SRB would have to re-calculate the administrative contributions to be paid by the appellant for 2018 during the next cycle and reimburse the resulting amounts (42) The contesting bank had lost its banking license during 2018 It therefore fell out of the scope of administrative contributions for a part of 2018 52 As envisaged in the framework, during its calculation of administrative contributions for the financial year 2019 the SRB re-calculated the annual contributions for 2018 for banks which changed scope or status during 2018 (43), based on ECB data as at January 2019 As at 21 June 2019, no appeals or court proceedings concerning administrative contributions were pending Consequently, the SRB did not disclose any contingent liabilities for administrative contributions Additional information relating to judicial proceedings 53 The proceedings initiated against the SRB and the NRAs have a cost in terms of their financial and human resources The costs will be borne directly by these authorities and consequently by all banks via their contributions In 2018, the SRB committed Ű5 million to external legal services related to judicial proceedings for the years to come At year-end 2018, out of fourteen staff in the SRBŐs legal service, six staff were dealing with litigation In 2019, three further employees were due to be recruited for the litigation team PartII: ContingentliabilitiesoftheCommission 54 The European Commission confirmed that at 31 December 2018 there were no contingent liabilities arising based on its task under the SRM Regulation 55 EU case law (44) limits the delegation of power to EU agencies, such as the SRB, to executive powers and consequently limits the delegation of discretionary powers Therefore, as provided for in the SRM Regulation, a resolution scheme takes effect only if the Commission endorses it The Commission may object to any discretionary aspects of the proposed resolution scheme If the Commission objects to the resolution scheme due to the criterion of public interest or requests a material modification of the use of the SRF, it must propose any such changes to the Council (45) 56 On 7 June 2017, the Commission endorsed the first resolution scheme (46), adopted by the SRB In relation to this scheme, 30 judicial proceedings have been brought before the GC against the Commission (47) While all 30 applicants brought actions for annulment of the CommissionŐs decision, eight applicants also brought actions for damages These cases are still in progress and have not been subject to a ruling by the GC As the resolution of BPE did not involve any public financial support or any use of the SRF (see para 2), the Commission did not conduct a State aid or Fund aid assessment 57 As was the case for the 2017 accounts, the Commission has decided not to disclose any contingent liabilities for these cases based on its accounting assessment One reason given for the accounting assessment is that, based on the available information, no applicant has sufficiently demonstrated a non-contractual liability on the part of the Commission In particular, the Commission stated that there was no sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals (compare paragraph 21) Therefore, in the CommissionŐs view, an outflow of resources relating to its endorsement decision is remote Furthermore, the Commission stated that no applicants can have suffered damage, given that the alternative of resolution would have been insolvency under national rules Any shareholder or creditor who would have been better off in the case of insolvency proceedings will be compensated under the ongoing Ôno-creditor worse offŐ procedure (see paragraphs 34-37) The Commission therefore stated that, based on its comprehensive experience, the financial risk potentially arising from these cases is remote (41) Article 85(3) SRM Regulation (42) Decision of the SRBŐs appeal panel on 13 August 2018 in case 04/18, para 16 (43) This can be due to the reclassification of a bank as Ôless significantŐ or ÔsignificantŐ or the removal of a banking license (44) Meroni doctrine as established in cases 9/56 and 10/56, Meroni & Co, Industrie Metallurgiche v High Authority, [1957-1958] ECR 133 and case C-270/12, United Kingdom v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, [ECLI:EU:C:2014:18] (45) Article 18(7) SRM Regulation (46) Endorsement of the resolution scheme concerning Banco Popular Espaol S A (BPE) (47) Only in one of these 30 cases is the Commission the sole defendant