# C_2023155EN.01003801.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-230/20, PNB Banka v ECB

(Case C-102/23 P)

(2023/C 155/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare void the decision of the ECB of 17 February 2020, ECB-SSM-220-LVPNB-1, WHD-2019-0016, withdrawing the appellant’s authorisation as a credit institution; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void the decision of the ECB of 17 February 2020, ECB-SSM-220-LVPNB-1, WHD-2019-0016, withdrawing the appellant’s authorisation as a credit institution;

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and

| — | to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law alleging that the General Court erred with respect to the manner in which it dealt with the issue of the representation of the appellant. This plea consists of three parts.

First, the General Court erroneously excluded the first part of the licence withdrawal procedure from consideration, namely the preparation of the decision by the national competent authority.

Second, the General Court erred with respect to the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923) by treating that judgement as if it changed the law and therefore failing to consider that the ECB had to rectify its previous failure to comply with the principles upheld by this judgement.

Third, the General Court erred as regards its assessment of the ECB’s conduct after the ECB changed its position following the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C-663/17 P, C-665/17 P and C-669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923). The ECB therefore failed to implement the Court’s judgment in a good faith manner.

Second plea in law alleging that the judgement under appeal is procedurally flawed because the General Court did not deal appropriately with the issue of the representation of the appellant in the context of the procedure in front of the General Court.

The General Court erred when it assumed that an issue with respect to the integrity of the procedure in front of the General Court is not a problem as long as it can be argued that the problem would not exist if, hypothetically, Latvia complied with its obligations. It thereby violated the principle that legal protection must not be merely theoretical and illusory and thereby violated Article 47 of the Charter.

---