Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/2561

12.5.2025

(Case T-147/25)

(C/2025/2561)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Fernandez and N. Hohler, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Annul the defendant’s decision no. SRB/EES/2024/111 dated 9 December 2024 determining that no compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders affected by the resolution of Sberbank banka d.d.;

—Order the defendant to bear the 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, a plea of illegality (pursuant to Articles 263 and 277 TFEU), alleging that the contested decision lacks an ultimate endorsement by an EU institution. Decisions pursuant to Article 76(1)(e) and Article 20(16)-(18) of Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (‘the SRMR’) (1) have to be subject to such an endorsement of an EU institution as it, inter alia, derives from the SRMR itself as a whole, its principles, recent case law in the context of resolution procedures pursuant to the SRMR and the Meroni-Doctrine.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB, inter alia, therefore has no competence and acted ultra vires.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of essential procedural requirements. The SRB infringed, inter alia, the applicant’s rights under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (‘the Charter’), inter alia, its right to be heard, access to the file, the right of defence and its right to a statement of reasons. Moreover, the principle of equal treatment before the law pursuant to primary Union law was also violated by the SRB towards the applicant without justification. Also, the reliance on Article 90(4) SRMR for refusal of access to the file is incorrect. Additionally, Article 90(4), second sentence, SRMR is illegal, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, where it relates to internal preparatory documents of the SRB. It illegally narrows Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter in that respect.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging, inter alia, a breach of the time requirement pursuant to Article 20(16) SRMR, inter alia, in comparison with the previous Banco Popular Valuation 3 matters.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the criterion for an independent valuer by means of Article 20(16) SRMR. Commission Delegated Regulation 2016/1075 (2) is not applicable in the context of Article 20(16) to Article 20(18) SRMR, and, in any event, the criteria set out in Articles 38 to 41 of that delegated regulation were clearly not met in the present case by the SRB’s hired valuers.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a series of manifest decisive errors of assessment by the SRB in relying on the Valuation 3 report subject to the present case. The SRB’s adoption of the Valuation 3 report for the contested decision prepared by the hired valuers in the present case is vitiated with errors, inter alia, by relying on the inapplicable Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/344 (3) in the present context of Article 20(16) to Article 20(18) SRMR, by relying on erroneous factual assumptions with respect to the factual basis and data, by not relying on undisputed publicly available information and evidence that contradicts the valuers’ assumptions, by means of manifest errors of assessment in respect to the applied methodology and since the SRB infringed on its own publicly available guidelines. Thus, the outcome of the contested decision, inter alia, regarding the difference in treatment of the affected shareholders and award for compensation, would have been different in the present case.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging the violation of the no-creditor-worse-off-principle, pursuant to Article 15(1)(g) SRMR, inter alia, on the grounds and by means of the preceding pleas in law.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and a fair compensation (Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter), on the grounds and by means of the preceding pleas in law.

9.Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 47 of the Charter, inter alia, on the grounds and by means of the preceding pleas in law, in particular, the violation of essential procedural requirements.

—

(1) 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 L 225, 30.7.24, p. 1).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1075 of 23 March 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the content of recovery plans, resolution plans and group resolution plans, the minimum criteria that the competent authority is to assess as regards recovery plans and group recovery plans, the conditions for group financial support, the requirements for independent valuers, the contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers, the procedures and contents of notification requirements and of notice of suspension and the operational functioning of the resolution colleges (OJ L 184, 8.7.2016, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/344 of 14 November 2017 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the criteria relating to the methodologies for valuation of difference in treatment in resolution (OJ L 67, 9.3.2018, p. 3).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2561/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—