- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-523/22: Action brought on 18 August 2022 — Sberbank Europe v Council and Others
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0523
62022TN0523
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
14.11.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 432/30
(Case T-523/22)
(2022/C 432/38)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Sberbank Europe AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)
Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Single Resolution Board
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU the contested decision; 1 and
—order the SRB, the Commission and the Council to bear the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the SRB exceeded its competence by adopting a decision with respect to the applicant.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB infringed essential procedural requirements with respect to the applicant.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a number of substantive defects.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to consider appropriately alternative measures pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) SRMR. 2
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome option in the context of resolution action with respect to the applicant.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated substantive and procedural rules governing the sale of business tool, including Article 20 SRMR.
7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality and committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to potential alternative solutions.
8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to contact the applicant’s or Sberbank Slovenia’s management in relation to Article 13(3) SRMR.
9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to follow the resolution plan without any plausible justification.
The decision contested by the applicant in this case is the SRB’s decision of 1 March 2022 (SRB/EES/2022/20) with respect to the Slovenian subsidiary of the applicant (Sberbank banka d.d.) including, if applicable, the approval of such decision by the Commission and/or the Council.
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).