- 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-430/22: Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Nordea Bank v SRB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0430
62022TN0430
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
5.9.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 340/52
(Case T-430/22)
(2022/C 340/70)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Nordea Bank Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)
Defendant: Single Resolution Board
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the SRB of 11 April 2022, document no. SRB/ES/2022/18, including Annexes I, II and III, as far as it concerns the ex-ante contribution of the applicant;
—order the SRB to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by taking a dynamic approach to determine the target level for the ex-ante contributions.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the determination of the target level by the SRB in the contested decision suffers from manifest errors of assessment regarding the expected growth rate for covered deposits and the evaluation of the current business cycle.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB has infringed Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by not applying the binding 12,5 % cap to the target level when determining the annual target level.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are in breach of the principle of risk-oriented setting of the contributions and the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if the target level is to be determined in a dynamic way and the cap according to Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not to be applied, as would be the case if the contested decision is upheld.
* 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).