Action brought on 12 January 2017 — Landesbank Baden Württemberg v SRB
(Case T-14/17)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Landesbank Baden Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)
Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as the contested decisions concern the applicant’s contribution;
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 four pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) due to a lack of sufficient reasons given for the contested decisions
2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter due to the absence of a hearing of the applicant before the adoption of the contested decisions
3. Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 103(7)(h) of Directive 2014/59/EU 1 , Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 2 , the first sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 3 , Article 16 and 20 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality due to the application of the multiplier of 0.556 for the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) — Indicator
The applicant claims in the context of the third plea in law that the defendant had not fully applied the IPS-Indicator with respect to it. The protection offered by an institutional protection scheme applies to all member institutions fully and equally. Discrimination between the institutions at the level of IPS-Indicators is inconsistent with the system and arbitrary.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 16 of the Charter and the principle of proportionality due to the application of the risk adjustment multiplier
The applicant also relies on the fact that the Board infringed its freedom to conduct a business and the principle of proportionality, in so far as it calculated risk adjustment multipliers that are incompatible with the applicant’s risk profile which, relative to the other contributor-institutions, is better than average .
____________1 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 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).
2 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 amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).
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).