Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/5791

7.10.2024

(Case C-552/24)

(C/2024/5791)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and 37 other parties (full list annexed to the appeal) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi, C. Duriez, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

—declare the present appeal admissible and well founded;

—set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 June 2024, Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB (T-189/22, EU:T:2024:356), and give final judgment itself on the dispute to which that judgment relates;

—grant the forms of order sought by the applicants at first instance and, accordingly, partially annul ECB Decisions ECB-SMM-2022-FRCMU-6 of 2 February 2022 and ECB-SSM-2022-FRCMU-75 of 21 December 2022;

—order the ECB to pay the costs in full.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds.

First, a ground alleging that the General Court erred in law and infringed Articles 4 and 16 of the SSM Regulation (1) by failing to hold that the ECB acted outside it Pillar 2 competence. That ground is divided into two parts:

—the General Court failed to find that the risk identification and the resulting analysis are not based on the applicants’ own situation;

—the General Court failed to find that the issue of the coverage of the risk identified was not genuinely analysed on the basis of the applicants’ individual situation.

Secondly, a ground alleging that the General Court failed to observe the extent of its judicial review, failed to observe the principle of effective judicial review and infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. That ground is divided into two parts:

—the General Court failed to analyse sufficiently or properly the SREP decisions submitted in the context of the measure of organisation of procedure by which the General Court ordered the ECB to disclose all the extracts of the SREP decisions concerning ‘the examination of the impact of irrevocable payment commitments on the situation of the credit institutions’;

—the General Court failed to assess whether the individual analysis submitted by the ECB was genuine, confining itself to a merely formal examination of that analysis.

Thirdly, a ground alleging that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a failure to state reasons and by contradictory reasoning.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5791/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—