Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/51

(Case C-705/24 P)

(C/2025/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: T. Wittenberg, D. Ceran and I.-L. Stoicescu, acting as Agents, and by G. Coppo, avvocato, and K. Bongs, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: BAWAG P.S.K. Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Single Resolution Board claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 August 2024 in Case T-410/23, BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse v SRB,

—dismiss the action or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court,

—in the alternative, order that the effects of the decision at issue be maintained for a period of 30 months from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present appeal proceedings and in the proceedings in Cases C-536/24 P and C-537/24 P, in the event that those cases are decided following the present proceedings,

—order BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse to pay the costs of the proceedings at first and second instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The SRB submits that the Court, based on its judgment in Dexia v SRB, should set aside, on the following grounds, the judgment under appeal by which the General Court annulled the SRB’s decision of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, in so far as it concerns BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG:

First, the SRB criticises the General Court for misinterpreting Article 69(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014. The General Court found that the SRB should have estimated the target level ‘with sufficient care’ and in a ‘conservative’ manner (paragraph 33 of the judgment under appeal). That means, in essence, that the SRB should have purposely overestimated the target level by a significant margin in order to ensure cumulative compliance with the 12.5 % limit and with the rule that the forecast target level must reach 1 % of the amount of covered deposits in the banking union by the end of the initial period (1 % rule). That approach is contrary to the principles of legal certainty, sound administration and proportionality, infringes the Meroni doctrine and is intrinsically inconsistent.

Secondly, the SRB claims that the General Court, in paragraphs 31 to 33 of the judgment under appeal, committed an error of law in interpreting the supposedly clear and unambiguous wording of the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 as meaning that the 12.5 % limit must be applied strictly in all circumstances during the initial period. Not only is the reasoning for this contradictory and circular, but the General Court’s interpretation also disregards the context and purpose of the provision.

Thirdly, the SRB submits that the General Court erred in law and failed to assess the factual and legal circumstances as they existed at the time when the decision at issue was adopted. Rather, the General Court assessed the question whether the SRB can simultaneously comply with both the 12.5 % limit and the 1 % rule on the basis of an option that only existed in 2016, namely that of overestimating the forecast target level from the start of the initial period, and thus applied an incorrect basis for assessment.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/51/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—