Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/50

(CaseC-671/24 P)

(C/2025/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BAWAG P.S.K. Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (represented by: F. Kruis and N. Bartmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside, in part, the order of the General Court of 6 August 2024 in Case T-410/23, to the extent that, while annulling the contested decision of the SRB, the effects of which were temporarily maintained, until the SRB has taken the measures which result from the implementation of that order, which must occur within a reasonable period that cannot exceed six months from the entry into force of that order;

—dispose of the action on the merits and not to maintain the effects of the contested decision of the SRB, in so far as it concerns the appellant;

—in the alternative, should the Court of Justice not uphold the foregoing head of claim, maintain the contested decision only in so far as the appellant would be obliged to make a contribution in accordance with the 12.5 % limit provided for in Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014;

—order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that the decision at issue infringes the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice. First, the contested decision of the SRB failed to observe the 12.5 % limit provided for in Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and is therefore vitiated by a substantial illegality. Secondly, a refund of the (overpaid) contributions would not have serious negative consequences for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) or the economic and monetary union. Thirdly, the temporary maintenance of the effects of the contested decision of the SRB is contrary to the meaning and purpose of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014. Fourthly, the contested decision is disproportionate. The General Court should have maintained the contested decision of the SRB at most in so far as the appellant would be obliged to make a contribution without infringing the 12.5 % limit provided for in Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014.

Decision SRB/ES/2023/23 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund.

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).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/50/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: German