Appeal brought on 21 September 2020 by Crédit agricole SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber enlarged) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit agricole SA v ECB

(Case C–456/20 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Crédit agricole SA (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment delivered by the General Court on 8 July 2020 in Case T–576/18, Crédit Agricole SA v ECB dismissing the remainder of the appellant’s claims to annul ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of 16 July 2018;

Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance before the General Court;

Order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that:

(1) the General Court erred in law in applying the provisions of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and infringed the principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty by holding that the appellant had committed a breach in respect of its Pillar 3 disclosures and its COREP statement for the second quarter of 2016;

(2) the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea based on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 and infringed the principle of legal certainty by holding that there had been a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation No 575/2013 while expressly acknowledging the lack of clarity of that provision;

(3) the General Court infringed Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, as well as the obligation to state reasons, by failing to show negligent conduct on the part of the appellant;

(4) the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons by failing to reply to the plea alleging infringement by decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment, and infringed those two principles by implicitly holding that the penalty was well founded in principle.

____________