Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2014:208

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

31 March 2014 (*)

(Expedited procedure)

In Case C‑507/13,

ACTION for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, brought on 20 September 2013,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by A. Neergaard and A. Tamás, acting as Agents,

Council of the European Union, represented by E. Dumitriu-Segnana and I. Gurov, acting as Agents,

defendants,

supported by:

European Commission,

intervener,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

having regard to the proposal from K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, Rapporteur,

after hearing the Advocate General, N. Jääskinen,

makes the following

Order

1        By its action, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seeks the annulment of Article 94(1)(g) and (2), and Article 162(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338, and corrigendum at OJ 2013 L 208, p. 73) and of Articles 450(1)(d), (i) and (j) and 521(2) 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, with corrigenda at OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68, and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6). The contested provisions put in place measures, first, to limit the variable remuneration that can be paid by credit institutions and investment firms to members of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profile of the institution or firm and, secondly, to require such institutions and firms to publish the variable and fixed components of remuneration for members of staff considered to have such an impact on the institution’s or firm’s risk profile.

2        By a separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on the same day as its action, the United Kingdom requested, under Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, that the action be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure.

3        In support of its request, the United Kingdom submits that the contested provisions have to be applied in the Member States from 1 January 2014. Those provisions would affect a large number of existing contracts. Furthermore, for employees negotiating their salary terms, the scope of the contested provisions is uncertain at this stage. The proper implementation of those provisions is dependent on the European Commission’s prior definition of the concept of material risk takers on the basis of a proposal from the European Banking Authority which the latter has to submit by 31 March 2014, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 94(2) of Directive 2013/36. Salary negotiations that are under way would be adversely affected. Once staff have accepted new contract terms, it will be difficult to reverse the position if the Court annuls the contested provisions. The legal position should therefore be clarified as soon as possible.

4        The United Kingdom also maintains that the effect of the contested provisions has been that the banks have already, even before 1 January 2014, increased the fixed element of remuneration for part of their staff. Such a situation could undermine the financial stability of the institutions in question.

5        It must be stated that it is clear from Article 133(1) of the Rules of Procedure that, at the request of the applicant or the defendant, the President of the Court may, where the nature of the case requires that it be dealt with within a short time, after hearing the other party, the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, decide that a case is to be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure.

6        In the present case, the circumstances invoked by the United Kingdom do not establish that the nature of the case requires that it be dealt with within a short time.

7        The large number of contracts potentially affected by the contested provisions is not capable, as such, of constituting a factor that would justify recourse to an expedited procedure (see, to that effect, orders of the President of the Court of 10 February 2004 in Case C‑540/03 Parliament v Council, paragraph 10, and of 21 September 2004 in Case C‑317/04 Parliament v Council, paragraph 11).

8        Likewise, the need to clarify the relevant legal framework does not in itself constitute such a factor (see order of the President of the Court of 27 July 2004 in Case C‑318/04 Parliament v Commission, paragraph 13).

9        Similarly, the Court must also reject the argument that the contested provisions could undermine the financial stability of the banks. In that regard it must be noted that an expedited procedure is required in particular where it is necessary for a decision of the Court to be taken within a short time in order to avoid the risks that might be incurred if the proceedings were to take their normal course. However, in so far as the United Kingdom itself submits that the banks have adjusted their behaviour, even before 1 January 2014, for the purpose of complying with the obligations arising from the contested provisions, the use of an expedited procedure would not in any event prevent the situation of those institutions from being affected by the possible consequences of the application of those provisions (see, to that effect, order of 21 September 2004, Parliament v Council, paragraph 13).

10      It follows from this that the request of the United Kingdom for Case C‑507/13 to be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure cannot be granted.

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1.      The request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Case C‑507/13 to be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure is refused.

2.      Costs are reserved.

[Signatures]


* Language of the case: English.