Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/5412

16.9.2024

(Case C-537/24 P)

(C/2024/5412)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: K.-P. Wojcik, H. Ehlers, D. Ceran and C. De Falco, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Volkskreditbank AG, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Single Resolution Board (SRB) claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2024 in Case T-406/22, Volkskreditbank v SRB;

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

—in the alternative, maintain the effects of the decision at issue for a period of 30 months from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present appeal proceedings;

—order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

According to the Single Resolution Board (SRB), the judgment under appeal, by which the General Court annulled the SRB’s decision of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, must be set aside in so far as it concerns Volkskreditbank. In that regard, the SRB relies on a total of five grounds of appeal.

First, the SRB claims that the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 23 to 43 and, in particular, paragraphs 32 to 41 of the judgment under appeal, according to which insufficient reasons were given as to why the conferral on the Council of implementing powers under Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 constituted a ‘duly justified specific case’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 291 TFEU, are vitiated by errors of law. The General Court set at too high a level the standard of reasoning required by case-law and disregarded the reasoning contained in recital 114 of Regulation No 806/2014, which must be interpreted in its specific context.

Secondly, the SRB argues that, in the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 45 to 87 of the judgment under appeal, it misinterpreted Article 70(7) of Regulation No 806/2014 and misunderstood Article 8(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81. In particular, the General Court, failing to recognise the transitional nature of Article 8(1) of Implementing Regulation 2015/81, erred in law in characterising that provision as an amendment to the calculation method provided for in Article 70(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014.

Thirdly, the SRB alleges that the General Court misinterpreted Article 69(1) of Regulation No 806/2014. The General Court found that the SRB should have estimated the forecast target level ‘with due care’ and ‘conservatively’ (paragraphs 125-126 of the judgment under appeal). That means, in essence, that the SRB should have deliberately and significantly overestimated the target level in order to ensure cumulative compliance with the 12.5 % upper limit and the rule that the target level must reach 1 % of covered deposits in the banking union at the end of the initial period (1 % rule). That approach breaches the principles of legal certainty, good administration and proportionality and the Meroni doctrine, and contradicts itself.

Fourthly, the SRB complaints that, in paragraphs 114 to 127, the General Court – relying on allegedly clear and unambiguous wording – incorrectly interpreted the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 as meaning that the 12.5 % upper limit must be strictly applied in all circumstances during the initial period. Not only is the reasoning for this contradictory and circular, the Court’s interpretation also fails to take account of the context and purpose of the provision.

Fifthly and lastly, the SRB argues that the General Court erred in law and failed to assess, as required, the factual and legal circumstances as they existed at the time the decision at issue was adopted. Instead, the General Court assessed the question of whether the SRB could simultaneously comply with both the 12.5 % upper limit and the 1 % rule on the basis of an option that only existed in 2016, namely to overestimate 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/2024/5412/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: German.