Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/27

—

(Case C-202/21 P)

(2021/C 217/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ABLV Bank AS, in liquidation (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgement under appeal;

—declare void the decision of the SRB with respect to ABLV Bank AS dated 17 October 2018;

—order the SRB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal;

—to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on thirteen pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court incorrectly interpreted Article 70(4) SRMR (1).

Second plea in law, alleging that the judgement under appeal based on an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 12 Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (2).

Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred with respect to the relevance of Article 7 of Delegated Regulation 2017/2361 (3) for the interpretation of Article 12(2) of Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred with respect to the proper interpretation and application of the principle of unjust enrichment.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court failed to address the appellant’s plea of illegality as regards the applicable provision in the present case.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law by regarding irrelevant as a mere practice the reimbursement by the SRB of ex ante contributions SRB’s Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03 which pursuant to that same provisions are owed as a matter of law.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as to the interpretation and relevance of Article 17 of Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as to the legal relevance of the existence of irrevocable payment commitments.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law by failing to address the appellant’s pleas in connection with the request for reimbursement of the balance of the 2015 contributions.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as regards the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred as regards the application of the principle of proportionality.

Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the judgement under appeal is based on an incorrect application of the nemo auditur principle.

Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the judgement under appeal is based on erroneous application of the requirement as to a statement of reason (Article 296 TFEU).

*

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).

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015, L 11, p. 44).

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2361 of 14 September 2017 on the final system of contributions to the administrative expenditures of the Single Resolution Board (OJ 2017, L 337, p. 6).

—