Order;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2026:127
Date: 2026-02-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Action for damages
Origin: Cyprus;Luxembourg;Latvia;Netherlands

summary of those pleas in law. Those elements must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible, for the basic legal and factual particulars relied upon to be stated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see order of 16 May 2024, Versobank v ECB, T‑421/23, not published, EU:T:2024:322, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). 13 In order to meet those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by the ECB must contain, inter alia, information identifying the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution, the reasons why it considers there to be a causal link between that conduct and the damage allegedly suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (see, to that effect, order of 16 May 2024, Versobank v ECB, T‑421/23, not published, EU:T:2024:322, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). 14 As regards the nature and extent of the alleged damage, an applicant may not have put in figures the amount of the loss which it submits it has suffered, while clearly indicating the evidence which enables its nature and extent to be assessed, so that the defendant is in a position to conduct its defence. In such circumstances, the absence of precise figures in the application does not affect the other party’s rights of defence (order of 22 July 2005, Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission, T‑376/04, EU:T:2005:297, paragraph 55). 15 However, a claim for any unspecified form of damages is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as manifestly inadmissible (see order of 10 July 2020, KF v SatCen, T‑619/19, not published, EU:T:2020:337, paragraphs 54 to 58 and the case-law cited). 16 In the present case, it must be held that the applicants’ claim for compensation are sufficiently precise only in so far as they seek compensation for the material damage they claim to have suffered as a result of the decision of 3 March 2016, corresponding to the value of the share capital that the applicants hold in Trasta, estimated to be at least EUR 25 million, plus appropriate compensatory interest and default interest. 17 Although the applicants stated in the application that they reserve the right to specify or quantify later other heads of damage resulting from the decision of 3 March 2016 and from the ECB’s conduct related to that decision, including a future loss of earnings and loss of reputation, the fact remains that the application does not contain any details that would enable the Court to assess the existence or extent of such damage. It follows that the claim for compensation for that damage is, on any view, manifestly inadmissible, in accordance with the principles set out in paragraphs 11 to 15 above. 18 Consequently, only the claims seeking compensation for the material damage referred to in paragraph 16 above will be examined below. Substance 19 As regards the material damage for which compensation is sought, it should be borne in mind that, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the ECB is, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, to make good any damage caused by it or by its servants in the performance of their duties. 20 In order for the ECB to incur non-contractual liability, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, a number of cumulative conditions must be satisfied, namely the ECB’s conduct must be unlawful, actual damage must have been suffered and there must be a causal link between the alleged conduct and the damage pleaded. Given the cumulative nature of those conditions, the action must be dismissed in its entirety where one of those conditions is not satisfied (see order of 25 July 2023, D’Agostino and Dafin v ECB, T‑424/22, not published, EU:T:2023:443, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited). 21 As regards the condition relating to the damage pleaded, it is important to emphasise that that damage must be actual, certain and quantifiable. By contrast, purely hypothetical and indeterminate damage does not give rise to compensation. It is for the applicant to produce to the Court the evidence to establish the existence and the extent of the damage suffered (see judgment of 26 October 2011, Dufour v ECB, T‑436/09, EU:T:2011:634, paragraph 192 and the case-law cited). 22 As regards the condition relating to a causal link, that condition concerns a sufficiently direct causal nexus between that institution’s alleged conduct and the damage, the burden of proof of which rests on the applicant, so that the conduct complained of must be the determining cause of the damage (see order of 25 July 2023, Nardi v ECB, T‑131/23, not published, EU:T:2023:444, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). 23 In the present case, in relation to the alleged damage, the applicants claim that the withdrawal of Trasta’s authorisation prevented Trasta from carrying out any banking business, which had the direct and foreseeable consequence of triggering its liquidation. According to the applicants, that led to the complete destruction of the Trasta’s assets and its insolvency, with the result that the applicants’ shareholdings in Trasta lost any value. 24 As regards the calculation of the compensation sought, estimated to be at least EUR 25 million, the applicants claim damage in an amount corresponding to the value of the 75.91% of shares which they hold in the share capital of Trasta. In that regard, they submit that the amount of the share capital set out in Trasta’s balance sheet, amounting to EUR 21.7 million, must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 on the ground that the accounting valuation of Trasta’s assets does not reflect their value as a whole. 25 In that regard, it must be noted that the applicants have not produced evidence of the existence and the extent of the damage alleged, as the ECB rightly points out. 26 First, the existence and the extent of the shortfall reported by Trasta, amounting to an alleged EUR 108 million, cannot be established solely on the basis of the claim in paragraph 49 of the application, concerning the information provided by Trasta’s liquidator on 8 December 2020, since that claim is not supported by any evidence which would enable the Court to assess its veracity. 27 Second, the applicants have in no way demonstrated that there has been damage equal to the value of their shareholding in Trasta’s share capital, which would imply that it is completely impossible to return that capital to Trasta’s shareholders at the end of its liquidation. 28 In addition, as the ECB correctly submits, the applicants have failed to explain the need to multiply the amount of the share capital owed to them by a factor of 1.5, merely alleging, without adducing any evidence, that the accounting valuation of Trasta’s assets is underestimated as regards their value as a whole. 29 Next, as regards the causal link between the decision of 3 March 2016 and the alleged damage, it must be noted that the applicants do not adduce any evidence of such a link, as the ECB rightly observes. 30 In that regard, the applicants state, in paragraph 48 of the application, that it is assumed that the alleged causal link is not controversial since the termination of Trasta’s business, its liquidation and the loss of reputation for its shareholders are the direct and foreseeable consequences of the withdrawal of its authorisation. 31 However, the ECB and the Commission dispute the alleged causal link, submitting, inter alia, that even assuming that no money will be left over for disbursement to Trasta’s shareholders after the satisfaction of its creditors, that situation is not attributable to the ECB, but is the consequence of the financial health of Trasta in the period prior to the withdrawal of its authorisation. 32 Furthermore, the applicants do not substantiate, in the application, the reasons why it should be held that the decision of 3 March 2016 is the determining cause, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 22 above, of the alleged deterioration of Trasta’s balance sheet, when that decision was based, as set out in paragraph 2 above, inter alia, on failures to meet capital requirements and limits to large exposures and Trasta’s lack of a prudent strategy. 33 In those circumstances, it must be held that the applicants, who did not lodge a reply, have not adduced any evidence to contradict the Commission’s contention that Trasta reported a capital shortfall prior to the adoption of the decision of 3 March 2016, which allegedly led to Trasta’s liquidation. 34 It follows that the applicants have manifestly failed to establish, as required by the case-law cited in paragraphs 20 to 22 above, the existence and extent of the alleged damage, nor the causal link between the decision of 3 March 2016 and that damage. 35 It must therefore be concluded that the conditions for the ECB to incur non-contractual liability are not satisfied in the present case, and it is not necessary to assess the legality of the decision of 3 March 2016 and the conduct of the ECB related to that decision. 36 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the action must be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. Costs 37 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 38 Furthermore, under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. 39 In the present case, since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the ECB, in accordance with the form of order sought by the ECB. There are no reasons connected to equity or unreasonable or vexatious costs, as referred to in Article 135 of those rules, for granting the applicants’ request that the ECB be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with that article. 40 In addition, in accordance with Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission are each to bear their own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed. 2. Mr Ivan Fursin, C & R Invest SIA, Figon Co. LTD, GCK Holding Netherlands BV and Rikam Holding SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). 3. The Republic of Latvia and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. Luxembourg, 11 February 2026. T. Henze, Deputy Registrar I. Gâlea Registrar President * Language of the case: English.