Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/4958

19.8.2024

(Case C-454/24 P)

(C/2024/4958)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: D. Ceran, C. De Falco, H. Ehlers, K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents, H-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt, F. Louis, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dexia SA, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 April 2024 in Case T-411/22, Dexia v SRB;

—dismiss the application for annulment and, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

—in any event, order the respondent to pay the costs in the case at first instance and on appeal before the Court of Justice;

—in the furthermost alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice were to uphold the annulment of appellant’s decision at issue, maintain the effects of the decision at issue until a new decision is adopted for a period of no longer than six months from the date of the judgment, on the same grounds as those which led the General Court to maintain the effects of that decision in the judgment under appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant argues that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) adopted in its executive session of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18) in so far as it concerns Dexia, and relies on three grounds of appeal.

In the first place, the General Court misinterpreted the misapplied Article 69(1) of Regulation No 806/2024 by concluding that the SRB must apply a strict cap of 12.5 % and, in order to reconcile that cap with the 1 % rule and that the SRB was able to assess the expected final target level based on an approach that was both as precise ‘as possible’ (paragraph 46) and ‘conservative’ (paragraphs 57 and 58). That essentially requires the SRB to overestimate, intentionally and significantly, the expected final target level. That approach does not, inter alia, take into account the wording, context and objective of Article 69(1) of Regulation No 806/2014, fails to observe the principle of sound administration, infringes the Meroni doctrine and is intrinsically inconsistent.

In the second place, in paragraphs 46 to 54 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court made an error in law by misinterpreting the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 and by concluding that a strict cap of 12.5 % had to be applicable during the initial period in all circumstances, on the basis of the wording of that provision which was allegedly clear and unequivocal. The General Court’s reasoning was inconsistent and circular and displayed a failure to interpret the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 806/2014 in the light of their context and purpose.

In the third place, the General Court erred in law by failing to assess the facts and points of law as at the time when the decision at issue was adopted. In paragraphs 55 to 58 of the judgment under appeal, when the General Court assessed whether it was possible for the SRB to observe both the 12.5 % cap and the 1 % rule, it based that assessment on incorrect information. Specifically, the General Court incorrectly assessed both the lawfulness of the decision at issue and the fact that it was impossible to reconcile the 12.5 % cap with the 1 % rule, by examining the entirety of the initial period, rather than the circumstances as at the time when the decision at issue was adopted.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4958/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—