Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/5839

7.10.2024

(Case T-435/24)

(C/2024/5839)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dexia (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J.-M. Gollier, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 11 June 2024 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) with reference SRB/ES/2024/20;

—order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.First plea, alleging the unlawfulness of the SRB’s decision on the ‘re-adoption’ of the decision which set the target level for the year 2021 at EUR 11 287 677 212,56, that is to say more than 12.5 % of the target level, in so far as it constitutes an infringement of the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014.

2.Second plea, alleging, in the alternative, if the contested decision is not annulled on the basis of another plea, the invalidity of the SRB’s calculation note concerning the applicant’s ex ante contribution for 2021, on the ground that it disregards a restatement which corrected some errors.

3.Third plea, based on the unlawfulness of Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

—First, the applicant relies on a breach of the principle of proportionality in so far as the calculation of the ex ante contributions to the SRF, first, is not in line with the objectives of Regulation No 806/2014, next, does not take into account the fact that the applicant was a credit institution in run-off management benefiting from a public guarantee in respect of which it was, in practice, certain that the SRF would never be called upon and, lastly, makes its orderly resolution more costly when the applicant already bears the burden of the cost of the State guarantee.

—Secondly, the applicant relies on a breach of the principle of equal treatment in so far as the abovementioned regulation treats, on the one hand, establishments in run-off management under public guarantee and operational establishments in the same way and, on the other hand, the applicant and mortgage credit undertakings differently even though the applicant has the same relevant characteristics as those undertakings.

4.Fourth plea, alleging, in the alternative, breach by the SRB of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment for the same reasons as those set out in the third plea, in so far as the SRB failed to comply with those principles by applying the provisions of Delegated Regulation 2015/63 to the applicant without any adjustment.

5.Fifth plea, alleging lack of legal basis for Articles 5, 69 and 70 of Regulation No 806/2014 in so far as they were adopted on the basis of Article 114(1) TFEU even though they do not concern approximation of laws but a transfer of national powers.

6.Sixth plea, alleging lack of legal basis for Articles 5, 69 and 70 of Regulation No 806/2014 in so far as they were adopted on the basis of Article 114(1) TFEU despite the fact that they are tax provisions.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5839/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—