Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62018TN0143

    Case T-143/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB

    IO C 161, 7.5.2018, p. 56–56 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    7.5.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 161/56

    Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB

    (Case T-143/18)

    (2018/C 161/64)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Central Bank

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

    —

    order the ECB to pay all the costs.

    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 there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB wrongly interpreted the EU legislation establishing the possibility for credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments and, consequently, rendered those provisions ineffective.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the risks allegedly posed by the irrevocable payment commitments having regard to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the ECB is, it is claimed, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons and the contested decision was inadequately reasoned.
    Top