Action brought on 12 July 2019 — Crédit Lyonnais v ECB

(Case T-504/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit Lyonnais (Lyon, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-39 adopted by the ECB on 3 May 2019, in so far as it refuses to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio 34% of its exposures to the Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘the CDC’);

order the ECB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the force of res judicata of the General Court’s judgment. The applicant submits that, by basing its decision on grounds which have already been examined and dismissed by the General Court in the judgment of 13 July 2018, Crédit agricole v ECB (T-758/16, EU:T:2018:472) and by continuing to highlight a theoretical risk of default by the French State and a risk of catastrophic sale of assets without demonstrating the cogency of those allegations, the European Central Bank infringed Article 266 TFEU and res judicata.

Second plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 429(14) and of Article 400(1)(a) 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 amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) and, second, the misuse of powers by the ECB. The applicant considers that, by basing its decision on the existence of a concentration risk on the Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘the CDC’) to entirely refuse to exclude the Crédit Lyonnais (‘LCL’) exposures to CDC from its leverage ratio, the ECB imposes a prudential requirement on LCL in respect of the concentration on sovereign exposures which Article 400(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 does not allow it to impose and uses its powers under Article 429(14) of the that regulation for purposes other than those provided for in that Article.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the ECB by persisting in failing to take into account the specific characteristics of regulated savings, thereby breaching its obligation to examine, with care and impartiality, all the relevant elements of the case at hand and to draw the necessary conclusions from it. The applicant considers that in so doing the ECB also makes a manifest error of assessment of the prudential risks relating to regulated savings.

____________