—

The defendant failed to hear the applicant before adopting the contested decision, thereby infringing Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

—

The contested decision was adopted in breach of general procedural requirements deriving from Article 41 of the Charter, Article 298 TFEU, general principles of law and the defendant’s Rules of Procedure.

—

It is, inter alia, not verifiable for the applicant that the contested decision complied with the minimum duration of written procedures.

—

The contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons; in particular, it lacks a statement of reasons relating to the individual case and a description of the fundamental considerations in the context of proportionality/discretion.

—

Moreover, the calculation of the annual contribution is not comprehensible.

—

A remedy for the lack of reasoning by means of the decision of the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) is excluded on legal and factual grounds.

—

The lack of a statement of reasons for the contested decision makes judicial review considerably more difficult. In that regard, the applicant submits that it is practically impossible for it to set out in detail the pleas in law and to challenge the grounds on which the contested decision was adopted.

—

In particular, the defendant infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, according to which the parties must be able to exchange arguments on both the factual and legal circumstances which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings.

—

The Commission had no discretion when adopting Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 as a delegated act within the meaning of Article 290 TFEU, which would result in limited judicial review. The same applies to the application of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 by the defendant.

—

In the application of the IPS indicator, the importance of the applicant’s membership of an institution-related guarantee scheme as an important criterion for the determination of contributions was well known, in particular the classification into three classes and the placing of the applicant in the class for the highest risk profile was erroneous in law.

—

Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, the defendant should also have taken into account the probability of the relevant institution being wound up and thus of the Single Settlement Fund being used when setting the contributions.

—

The defendant also disregarded the principle of proportionality when classifying the classes and allocating the adjustment factor for the IPS indicator.

—

The application by the defendant of the risk adjustment multiplier to be determined in accordance with step 6 in Annex I and Article 9(3) of Delegate Regulation (EU) 2015/63 infringes the principle of orientation towards the risk profile.

—

The setting of the risk adjustment multiplier at a value of 1,388146345995 and 1,384564814222 respectively also constitutes an infringement of the applicant’s entrepreneurial freedom enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter.

—

The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 is unlawful because the adjustment of the IPS indicator by the risk indicator ‘trading activities, off-balance-sheet risks, derivatives, complexity and run-off’ pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No. 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and thus leads to unjustified unequal treatment between different institutions which are members of an institutional protection scheme.

—

The second sentence of Article 7(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 also infringes the principle of proportionality because of the multiple consideration of the sub-risk indicators referred to in the first sentence of Article 7(4)(a) of that delegated regulation.