- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-540/22: Action brought on 2 September 2022 — France v SRB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0540
62022TN0540
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
17.10.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 398/36
(Case T-540/22)
(2022/C 398/43)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin, J.-L. Carré and E. Timmermans, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Decision 3/2021 of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board of 8 June 2022;
—order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action against Decision 3/2021 of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 8 June 2022 by which the Appeal Panel upholds the decision of the SRB not to grant to the banking group concerned the exemption from the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities applied on an individual basis, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB correctly interpreted and applied Article 12h of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 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 255, p 1) and that it remained within the limits of its discretion.
2.Second plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had not breached the principle of legal certainty.
3.Third plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had satisfied its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.