Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/5969

14.10.2024

(Case C-585/24)

(C/2024/5969)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, J. Bauerschmidt, A. Westerhof Löfflerová and E. d’Ursel, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Volkskreditbank AG, Single Resolution Board, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of 3 July 2024 in Case T-406/22, Volkskreditbank v SRB; (1)

—dismiss the action or refer the case back to the General Court; and

—order the respondent to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal;

—in the alternative, maintain the effects of the decision at issue for a period of 30 months from the date on which the judgment becomes final.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First, the Council submits that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 32 to 43 of the judgment under appeal by declaring Article 70(7) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (‘the SRM Regulation’) (2) inapplicable on the ground that the EU legislature conferred implementing powers on the Council without due justification in accordance with Article 291(2) TFEU.

Secondly, the Council criticises the General Court for having erred in law in paragraphs 52, 54, 63-67, 71, 72, 75, 76; 78, 79, 80-82 and 85 of the judgment under appeal by misinterpreting Articles 67, 70 and 77 of the SRM Regulation and their interdependence with Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) (3) and their relationship with the Agreement on the transfer and mutualisation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, when it found that Article 8(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (4) supplements the basic act under which it was adopted.

Thirdly, the Council claims that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the ground that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 114-122 of the judgment under appeal by misinterpreting Article 69(1) and Article 70(2) of the SRM Regulation when it decided that, despite the clear obligation under Article 69(1) of the SRM Regulation to reach the final target level of 1 % of the amount of covered deposits, a strict threshold of 12.5 % must be applied in all circumstances during the initial period.

In the alternative, the Council requests that the effects of the contested decision be maintained for a period of 30 months from the date on which the judgment of the Court of Justice becomes final.

(1) EU:T:2024:439.

(2) 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).

(3) Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

(4) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5969/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

Language of the case: German