Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/4869

12.8.2024

(Case T-324/24)

(C/2024/4869)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, G. Lombardi, G. Rumi and L.-D. Tassinari Vittone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 22 April 2024 establishing prudential requirements to reduce further the risks connected with the business of UniCredit SpA in Russia (Decision No ECB-SSM-2024-ITUNI-17) in its entirety;

—in the alternative, annul the contested decision in part as regards the following individual requirements in particular:

—(i) as regards restrictions on loans, which are to apply as of 1 June 2024, the prohibition on granting new loans or rolling over or prolonging existing loans;

—(ii) as regards restrictions on the taking of deposits, which are to apply as of 1 June 2024, the prohibition on taking new term deposits and the possibility of taking deposits only from Russian subsidiaries of a financial institution domiciled in the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom, Switzerland or the United States;

—(iii) as regards restrictions on payments, which are to apply as of 1 September 2024, the obligation to reduce the payment business, requiring payment services in euros, US dollars, Chinese yuan, British pounds sterling, Kazakhstan tenge, Swiss francs and Japanese yen to be provided by Russian subsidies only if they are processed via a so-called nested account opened by those subsidiaries with the applicant and only if the client is whitelisted;

—order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration due to a failure to investigate, infringement of the law and a consequent infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state reasons;

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration concerning the conflicting duties of the addressee and a consequential failure to state reasons;

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested requirements were impossible to implement ab origine;

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of the applicant’s right to property and freedom to conduct a business;

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the author of the contested decision did not have the power to issue that decision both ratione loci and in practical terms and an infringement of the law.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4869/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—