Det här dokumentet är ett utdrag från EUR-Lex webbplats
Dokument 62021TN0347
Case T-347/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB
Case T-347/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB
Case T-347/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB
OJ C 320, 9.8.2021, s. 50–51
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.8.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 320/50 |
Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB
(Case T-347/21)
(2021/C 320/56)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger and A. Brenneis, 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 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in any event in so far as that decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be made by the applicant; |
|
— |
stay the proceedings pursuant to Article 69(c) or (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court pending final resolution of (joined) Cases C-584/20 P (1) and C-621/20 P, (2) C-663/20 P (3) and C-664/20 P, (4) since the legal issues are largely the same in those proceedings, which have already been pending for some time; |
|
— |
order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of full disclosure of the contested decision
|
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements on account of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision
|
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and the failure to observe the right be heard
|
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (5) as a legal basis for the contested decision and unlawfulness of the risk adjustment methodology set out in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63
|
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of Directive 2014/59/EU (6) and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (7) as a legal basis for Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and therefore for the contested decision
|
(5) 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).
(6) 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).
(7) 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).