Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/1246

3.3.2025

(Case T-12/25)

(C/2025/1246)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Norddeutsche Landesbank – Girozentrale (represented by: J. Seitz and C. Marx, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the defendant’s decision of 25 October 2024 (reference: SRB/ES/2024/44) including the annexes thereto, in so far as they are relevant to the applicant, and

—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1)

In breach of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, the defendant set the annual target level at more than 1/8 of the final target level.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the application of the IPS (2) indicator infringes Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/63, (3) which is to be interpreted in the light of higher-ranking law

—In the context of the second subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, the defendant should have taken into account that the applicant holds derivatives primarily for hedging and risk management purposes.

—When applying the IPS indicator, the significance of the applicant’s membership in the institutional protection scheme of the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe was disregarded.

—According to the second subparagraph of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, the defendant should also have taken into account the low probability that the institution concerned would enter resolution and of the consequent making use of the Single Resolution Fund and should have observed the principle of proportionality.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that taking into account the derivatives exposure in the context of the risk indicator ‘trading activities, off-balance sheet exposures, derivatives, complexity and resolvability’ infringes Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, which is to be interpreted in the light of higher-ranking law

Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of orientation towards the risk profile, the defendant should have taken into account, when considering the derivatives exposure in the context of the first subparagraph of Article 6(5)(a), Article 6(6) and the first subparagraph of Article 7(4)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, that in the applicant’s case derivatives are primarily allocated to the non-trading portfolio and would be entered into primarily for hedging purposes.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that failure to take into account the MREL (4) risk indicator in the context of the ‘risk exposure’ pillar infringes Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63

In accordance with Article 6(1)(a) and Article 6(2)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, the defendant should have taken into account the applicant’s above average ratio of eligible liabilities and own funds of 67.6 %, which significantly exceeds the minimum ratio of 8 % set by the defendant.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the application of the risk adjusting multiplier infringes Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, which is to be interpreted in the light of higher-ranking law

When setting the risk adjustment multiplier, the defendant should have taken into account the applicant’s low probability of default and its above average MREL risk indicator in accordance with the principle of orientation towards the risk profile and the fundamental right to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (5)

6.Sixth plea in law (in the alternative), alleging that the second subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes higher-ranking law

By providing for a relativisation of the IPS indicator in the second subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, that provision fails to comply with the general principle of equality under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of proportionality, because institutions which are subject to the same institutional protection and thus have the same probability of default may be treated differently.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the classification mechanism of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes higher-ranking law

Assignment to risk bins in accordance with Annex I, Step 2, to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 gives rise to manifestly unfair results and therefore fails to comply with the principle of orientation towards the risk profile and the principle of equal treatment. In order to prevent this, the defendant should have added a manual check to the calculation formula for assignment to risk bins.

—

(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 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2) Institutional protection schemes – IPS.

(3) 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).

(4) Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities – MREL.

(5) OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1246/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—