Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:973
Date: 2024-11-21
Language of the case: Italian
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - successful
Origin: Italy

summary in paragraph 84 of the judgment under appeal, which is based on a reorganisation of the five pleas formally raised in the application. In substance, the General Court declared the fourth plea, which alleged an infringement of Article 70 of the TUB in particular, to be well founded. 23 Paragraphs 26 to 29 of the judgment under appeal. 24 First ground of appeal raised by the ECB in Case C‑777/22 P and first ground of appeal raised by the Commission in Case C‑789/22 P. 25 Second ground of appeal raised by the ECB in Case C‑777/22 P and second to fifth grounds of appeal raised by the Commission in Case C‑789/22 P. 26 See judgments of 23 April 2009, Sahlstedt and Others v Commission (C‑362/06 P, EU:C:2009:243, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited), and of 6 July 2023, Julien v Council (C‑285/22 P, not published, EU:C:2023:551, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited). See also judgment of 20 June 2024, EUIPO v Indo European Foods (C‑801/21 P, EU:C:2024:528, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited). 27 See, to that effect, judgments of 30 June 2022, Danske Slagtermestre v Commission (C‑99/21 P, EU:C:2022:510, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited), and 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, paragraph 103). 28 Paragraph 33 et seq. of the judgment under appeal. 29 For details, see paragraph 34 of the judgment under appeal. 30 See the second indent of paragraph 34 of the judgment under appeal. 31 See the third indent of paragraph 34 of the judgment under appeal. 32 See Article 18(9) and Article 26(7) of those statutes. 33 Paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal. 34 See also paragraph 38 of the judgment under appeal. 35 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, paragraphs 110 and 111). 36 See, to that effect, 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, paragraphs 109, 111 and 112); see also my Opinion in ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17 P, EU:C:2019:323, point 119). 37 See, to that effect, 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, paragraphs 113 to 115). 38 Paragraphs 47 to 53 of the judgment under appeal. 39 ECtHR, judgment of 7 July 2020, Albert and Others v. Hungary (CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD000529414). 40 See, to that effect, ECtHR, judgment of 7 July 2020, Albert and Others v. Hungary (CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD000529414, §§ 121 to 124, 132 and in particular 134). 41 ECtHR, judgment of 7 July 2020, Albert and Others v. Hungary (CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD000529414), § 155, with reference to the judgments of 20 September 2011, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, No 17854/04 (CE:ECHR:2011:0920JUD001785404), and of 7 November 2002, Olczak v. Poland (CE:ECHR:2002:1107DEC003041796). 42 ECtHR, judgment of 7 July 2020, Albert and Others v. Hungary (CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD000529414, §§ 154 and 155). 43 See, by analogy, 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, paragraph 114). 44 Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the judgment under appeal. 45 Judgment of 6 November 2018, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission, Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori and Commission v Ferracci (C‑622/16 P to C‑624/16 P, EU:C:2018:873, paragraphs 28 and 29 and the case-law cited). See also paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal. 46 Paragraph 58 et seq. of the judgment under appeal. 47 See, to that effect, for example, judgment of 23 April 2009, Sahlstedt and Others v Commission (C‑362/06 P, EU:C:2009:243, paragraph 26), with reference to the judgment of 15 July 1963 (Plaumann v Commission, 25/62, EU:C:1963:17, at 107)). 48 See, to that effect, judgment of 23 April 2009, Sahlstedt and Others v Commission (C‑362/06 P, EU:C:2009:243, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). 49 Paragraphs 58 to 64 of the judgment under appeal. 50 Settled case-law; see, in particular, judgments of 28 June 2018, Andres (Insolvenz Heitkamp BauHolding) v Commission (C‑203/16 P, EU:C:2018:505, paragraph 44 et seq., with regard to the holders of a right, acquired and certified by a tax assessment, to the application of a tax saving); of 27 February 2014, Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (C‑132/12 P, EU:C:2014:100, paragraph 59), and of 13 March 2008, Commission v Infront WM (C‑125/06 P, EU:C:2008:159, paragraph 71). 51 Paragraph 77 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, under the heading ‘Legal interest in bringing proceedings’. 52 See, in particular, paragraphs 81 and 82 of the judgment under appeal. 53 See, to that effect, judgments of 13 July 2023, D & A Pharma v EMA (C‑136/22 P, EU:C:2023:572, paragraph 45); of 7 November 2018, BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (C‑544/17 P, EU:C:2018:880, paragraph 31); and of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission (C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, paragraph 54 et seq., in particular paragraphs 62 and 68). 54 See, to that effect, the somewhat more cumbersome wording in the judgments of 13 July 2023, D & A Pharma v EMA (C‑136/22 P, EU:C:2023:572, paragraphs 43 and 44 and the case-law cited), and of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission (C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, paragraphs 55 to 58 and the case-law cited). 55 Judgments of 6 May 2021, Bayer CropScience and Bayer v Commission (C‑499/18 P, EU:C:2021:367, paragraph 40); of 7 November 2018, BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (C‑544/17 P, EU:C:2018:880, paragraph 42); and of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission (C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, paragraphs 69 and 70). 56 See judgments of 7 November 2018, BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (C‑544/17 P, EU:C:2018:880, paragraph 43), and of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission (C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, paragraph 79). 57 See, to that effect, judgment of 13 July 2023, D & A Pharma v EMA (C‑136/22 P, EU:C:2023:572, paragraphs 51 to 53 and the case-law cited). 58 See, with regard to a similar action for damages brought by minority shareholders in the bank, judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2024, Malacalza Investimenti and Malacalza v ECB (T‑134/21, EU:T:2024:362), in which an appeal is currently pending (Case C‑557/24 P). 59 See my Opinion in ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17 P, EU:C:2019:323, point 104 et seq., in particular point 119). 60 Paragraphs 100 to 113 of the judgment under appeal. 61 See also Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:296, point 30). 62 With regard to this obligation of national authorities to apply a directly applicable provision of a directive, see judgment of 6 December 2005, ABNA and Others (C‑453/03, C‑11/04, C‑12/04 and C‑194/04, EU:C:2005:741, paragraph 101 and the case-law cited). 63 See, in particular, paragraphs 112 and 113 of the judgment under appeal. 64 Judgment of 21 December 2023, Papier Mettler Italia (C‑86/22, EU:C:2023:1023, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited). 65 Judgment of 6 October 2015, T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone Czech Republic (C‑508/14, EU:C:2015:657, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited). 66 This refers in general to the ‘deterioration of an institution’s financial and economic situation’. 67 See, inter alia, judgment of 6 October 2015, T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone Czech Republic (C‑508/14, EU:C:2015:657, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited). 68 See, to that effect, judgments of 21 December 2023, Papier Mettler Italia (C‑86/22, EU:C:2023:1023, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited), and of 6 October 2015, T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone Czech Republic (C‑508/14, EU:C:2015:657, paragraph 53). See also my Opinion in Impact (C‑268/06, EU:C:2008:2, point 96). 69 See Kokott, J., ‘Zur unmittelbaren Wirkung des Unionsrechts’, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 2023, Vol. 148, p. 496 et seq. (501). 70 See, by analogy, judgment of 21 December 2023, Papier Mettler Italia (C‑86/22, EU:C:2023:1023, paragraph 83). See also judgments of 9 September 2003, CIF (C‑198/01, EU:C:2003:430, paragraph 49); of 29 April 1999, Ciola (C‑224/97, EU:C:1999:212, paragraph 30); and of 22 June 1989, Costanzo (103/88, EU:C:1989:256, paragraphs 31 and 32). 71 See judgments of 6 October 2015, T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone Czech Republic (C‑508/14, EU:C:2015:657, paragraphs 47 and 48); of 17 July 2008, Arcor and Others (C‑152/07 to C‑154/07, EU:C:2008:426, paragraphs 35 and 36); and of 7 January 2004, Wells (C‑201/02, EU:C:2004:12, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited). 72 See judgment of 3 May 2005, Berlusconi and Others (C‑387/02, C‑391/02 and C‑403/02, EU:C:2005:270, paragraphs 73 to 77). 73 See also my Opinion in Berlusconi and Others (C‑387/02, C‑391/02 and C‑403/02, EU:C:2004:624, point 140 et seq.). 74 Settled case-law, see judgment of 7 August 2018, Smith (C‑122/17, EU:C:2018:631, paragraph 42 et seq. and the case-law cited). See also judgment of 14 July 1994, Faccini Dori (C‑91/92, EU:C:1994:292, paragraph 20 et seq.). 75 See judgment of 7 January 2004, Wells (C‑201/02, EU:C:2004:12, paragraph 57 et seq.). 76 See judgments of 6 October 2015, T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone Czech Republic (C‑508/14, EU:C:2015:657, paragraphs 49, 50 and 53), and of 17 July 2008, Arcor and Others (C‑152/07 to C‑154/07, EU:C:2008:426, paragraph 38). 77 As with the environmental impact assessment in the judgment of 7 January 2004, Wells (C‑201/02, EU:C:2004:12, paragraph 57 et seq.). 78 With regard to the consideration of certain criteria for the calculation of contributions or costs influencing the level of tariffs in the telecommunications sector, judgments of 6 October 2015, T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone Czech Republic (C‑508/14, EU:C:2015:657, paragraph 46 et seq.), and of 17 July 2008, Arcor and Others (C‑152/07 to C‑154/07, EU:C:2008:426, paragraph 35 et seq.). See also, with regard to VAT law, judgment of 8 June 2006, Feuerbestattungsverein Halle (C‑430/04, EU:C:2006:374, paragraph 28 et seq.). 79 Di Bucci (footnote 9 above), p. 329, on the other hand, considers that in this context the case-law concerning the prohibition on directly applying provisions of a directive which impose obligations on the individual is not pertinent, in general, on account of the obligation to apply legislation in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1024/2013. 80 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, paragraphs 102 to 115). 81 Paragraph 112 of the judgment under appeal. 82 See, inter alia, the clearer English and French versions: ‘all relevant EU law’; ‘toutes les dispositions pertinentes du droit de l’Union’ (emphasis added). 83 Accordingly, recital 34 of Regulation No 1024/2013 states that this obligation to apply ‘is without prejudice to the principle of the primacy of EU law’. 84 This not always the case, as is shown in particular by the fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Regulation No 1024/2013 (see also recitals 13 and 15): ‘This Regulation is without prejudice to the responsibilities and related powers of the competent authorities of the participating Member States to carry out supervisory tasks not conferred on the ECB by this Regulation’. 85 Similarly Coman-Kund and Amtenbrink (footnote 9 above), pp. 148 to 150, and Di Bucci (footnote 9 above), p. 328; for a different approach, Witte (footnote 9 above), p. 106. 86 See also, to that effect, recital 12 of Regulation No 1024/2013: ‘… a single supervisory mechanism should ensure that the Union’s policy relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions is implemented in a coherent and effective manner, that the single rulebook for financial services is applied in the same manner to credit institutions in all Member States concerned, and that those credit institutions are subject to supervision of the highest quality, unfettered by other, non-prudential considerations’. 87 See also Biondi and Spano (footnote 9 above), p. 1040 et seq. 88 This would be conceivable for banks that are controlled by the State; see, with regard to the ‘vertical’ direct applicability of provisions of directives, judgment of 10 October 2017, Farrell (C‑413/15, EU:C:2017:745). 89 The ECB has always taken this view; see ECB, Feedback Statement – Responses to the public consultation on a draft Regulation and draft Guide of the European Central Bank, March 2016, p. 10, No 35. See also Boucon and Jaros (footnote 9 above), pp. 170 to 172 and 183; Coman-Kund and Amtenbrink (footnote 9 above), pp. 153 and 156. 90 Judgment of 6 October 2021, Sumal (C‑882/19, EU:C:2021:800, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited; for the first time judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 57; emphasis added). Still without reference to the principle of primacy, see the (in my view more correct) judgment of 8 November 2016, Ognyanov (C‑554/14, EU:C:2016:835, paragraph 59: ‘… This obligation to interpret national law in compliance with EU law is inherent in the system of the FEU Treaty, since it permits national courts, for the matters within their jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law when they rule on the disputes before them’). With regard, specifically, to the obligation to interpret in compliance with a directive, see judgment of 11 April 2024, Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (Exclusion of claims governed by public law from discharge of debt) (C‑687/22, EU:C:2024:287, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 91 See, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2021, Sumal (C‑882/19, EU:C:2021:800, paragraphs 71 and 72 and the case-law cited). See also judgment of 21 December 2023, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Conviction in absentia) (C‑398/22, EU:C:2023:1031, paragraph 48), and my Opinion in Heureka Group (Online price comparison services) (C‑605/21, EU:C:2023:695, points 79 to 82). 92 See also Coman-Kund and Amtenbrink (footnote 9 above), p. 158; Biondi and Spano (footnote 9 above), pp. 1042 to 1044; Di Bucci (footnote 9 above), p. 327. 93 This is evident from an overall examination of the findings made in paragraphs 94, 105 to 108, 112 and 113 of the judgment under appeal. 94 As has already been stated in footnote 18 above, this statement is only implicit in the judgment under appeal. 95 For a doubting view, see Di Bucci (footnote 9 above), p. 327. 96 For details, see Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:296, point 26 et seq.). 97 See, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2024, Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:731, paragraphs 75, 85, 86, 98 and 114), and of 15 September 2022, PNB Banka v ECB (C‑326/21 P, not published, EU:C:2022:693, paragraph 71). 98 See judgment of 5 July 2011, Edwin v OHIM (C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraphs 44 to 46). 99 See, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2024, Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:731, paragraphs 85 and 86), and of 15 September 2022, PNB Banka v ECB (C‑326/21 P, not published, EU:C:2022:693, paragraph 71). 100 Under that provision, an appeal may lie only on the ground of ‘the infringement of EU law by the General Court’. 101 Such partial ‘incorporation’ might possibly occur in legal disputes before the EU Courts based on an arbitration clause. Article 272 TFEU enables national civil law to become the subject of judicial review of a contract between the EU institutions and undertakings; see, for example, judgment of 16 July 2020, ADR Center v Commission (C‑584/17 P, EU:C:2020:576, paragraphs 88 and 89), and my Opinion in ADR Center v Commission (C‑584/17 P, EU:C:2019:941, point 121 et seq.). 102 See to that effect, however, Di Bucci (footnote 9 above), p. 330. The General Court also appears to take this view in paragraphs 111 and 112 of the judgment under appeal when it describes the EU law referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1024/2013, including directives and the national law transposing them, (implicitly) as flowing from a single legislative source (see above, point 31). 103 See, to that effect, judgment of 9 April 2024, Profi Credit Polska (Reopening of proceedings concluded with a final judicial decision) (C‑582/21, EU:C:2024:282, paragraphs 31 and 49 et seq.). See also my Opinion in Edwin v OHIM (C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:30, points 49 et seq. and 56). 104 This is reflected particularly in the allocation of the burden of setting out and proving the facts between the Commission and the Member State concerned and in the latter’s duties of cooperation in determining the actual significance and specific application of national law, which the Commission cannot carry out autonomously in the absence of its own investigative powers. See, in this regard, judgments of 25 January 2024, Commission v Ireland (Trihalomethanes in drinking water) (C‑481/22, EU:C:2024:85, paragraph 72 et seq.); of 2 September 2021, Commission v Sweden (Waste water treatment plants) (C‑22/20, EU:C:2021:669, paragraph 143 et seq.); of 22 April 2021, Commission v Austria (Lease of a building not yet constructed) (C‑537/19, EU:C:2021:319, paragraph 55 et seq.); of 17 December 2020, Commission v Hungary (Reception of applicants for international protection) (C‑808/18, EU:C:2020:1029, paragraph 111 et seq., with regard to an administrative practice), and of 9 July 2015, Commission v Ireland (C‑87/14, EU:C:2015:449, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited). 105 See, for example, judgments of 9 April 2024, Profi Credit Polska (Reopening of proceedings concluded with a final judicial decision) (C‑582/21, EU:C:2024:282, paragraphs 31, 55 and 58); of 27 April 2023, Legea (C‑686/21, EU:C:2023:357, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited); of 20 October 2022, Ekofrukt (C‑362/21, EU:C:2022:815, paragraph 25); and of 7 July 2016, Genentech (C‑567/14, EU:C:2016:526, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited). 106 Opinions in Edwin v OHIM (C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:30, point 42 et seq.) and subsequently in EUIPO v Szajner (C‑598/14 P, EU:C:2016:915, point 44 et seq.). 107 Judgment of 5 July 2011, Edwin v OHIM (C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraph 44 et seq.); subsequently judgment of 27 March 2014, OHIM v National Lottery Commission (C‑530/12 P, EU:C:2014:186, paragraph 34 et seq.). See also judgment of 5 April 2017, EUIPO v Szajner (C‑598/14 P, EU:C:2017:265, paragraph 35 et seq.). 108 See judgments of 12 September 2024, Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:731, paragraphs 85 and 86 and the case-law cited), and of 15 September 2022, PNB Banka v ECB (C‑326/21 P, not published, EU:C:2022:693, paragraph 71). 109 Judgment of 27 March 2014, OHIM v National Lottery Commission (C‑530/12 P, EU:C:2014:186, paragraph 37: ‘… it is not apparent … that a rule of national law … should be treated as a purely factual matter …’). See also Prek, M., and Lefèvre, S., ‘The EU Courts as “national” courts: National law in the EU judicial process’, Common Market Law Review, 2017, Vol. 54, No 2, p. 369 (394: ‘“hybrid” or sui generis approach’). 110 See judgments of 10 September 2024, Commission v Ireland and Apple Sales International (C‑465/20 P, EU:C:2024:724, paragraphs 174 to 176); of 14 December 2023, Commission v Amazon.com and Others (C‑457/21 P, EU:C:2023:985, paragraphs 19 to 22); of 5 December 2023, Luxembourg and Others v Commission (C‑451/21 P and C‑454/21 P, EU:C:2023:948, paragraphs 76 to 79); of 8 November 2022, Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission (C‑885/19 P and C‑898/19 P, EU:C:2022:859, paragraph 72 et seq., in particular paragraph 82); of 21 December 2016, Commission v Hansestadt Lübeck (C‑524/14 P, EU:C:2016:971, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited); of 3 April 2014, France v Commission (C‑559/12 P, EU:C:2014:217, paragraph 77 et seq.); and of 21 December 2011, A2A v Commission (C‑318/09 P, not published, EU:C:2011:856, paragraph 125). 111 This view is again shared by Advocate General Ćapeta in her Opinion in Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:296, point 47 et seq.), although she considers national law to be substantially the same as EU law in respect of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1024/2013. 112 See, however, Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:296, points 44 to 46). See also Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella in Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB (C‑152/18 P and C‑153/18 P, EU:C:2019:505, point 120, with reference, inter alia, to the judgment of 13 December 2017, Crédit Mutuel Arkéa v ECB, T‑712/15, EU:T:2017:900, paragraph 132). 113 See, inter alia, judgment of 25 October 2017, Commission v Italy (C‑467/15 P, EU:C:2017:799, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited). The situation could be different as regards the scope of the rule on which the contested measure is based; see final judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019, RV v Commission (T‑167/17, EU:T:2019:404, paragraphs 59 to 61), and Opinion of Advocate General Pikamäe in EUIPO v Neoperl (C‑93/23 P, EU:C:2024:751, point 72 et seq.). 114 See, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2024, Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:731, paragraphs 86 and 114); of 15 September 2022, PNB Banka v ECB (C‑326/21 P, not published, EU:C:2022:693, paragraph 71); of 5 April 2017, EUIPO v Szajner (C‑598/14 P, EU:C:2017:265, paragraph 56); and of 5 July 2011, Edwin v OHIM (C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraph 53). With regard, in general, to the limited power of review of the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings, see, inter alia, judgment of 18 June 2020, Dovgan v EUIPO (C‑142/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:487, paragraph 44). 115 See, in particular, the references to the judgments of the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio, Italy), No 1627 of 1 February 2017, No 11766 of 15 November 2021 and No 13520 of 27 December 2021, and of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) No 6583 of 20 December 2012 and No 835 of 19 February 2015. Even though, in my view, it is ultimately not relevant, I would add, for the sake of completeness, that those judgments actually seem to support the interpretation presented by the appellants and by Italy and thus the approach taken by the ECB in the contested decisions. Ms Corneli hardly addresses this case-law of the administrative courts, but essentially confines herself to a literal interpretation advocated by academic opinions and the general case-law of the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), which gives precedence to this interpretative method in civil law. 116 See, to that effect, judgments of 11 January 2024, Foz v Council (C‑524/22 P, EU:C:2024:23, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited), and of 23 March 2023, PV v Commission (C‑640/20 P, EU:C:2023:232, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited); emphasis added. 117 See, to that effect, judgment of 19 June 2019, RF v Commission (C‑660/17 P, EU:C:2019:509, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited). 118 See, to that effect, judgments of 12 November 2020, Pethke v EUIPO (C‑382/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:917, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited), and of 18 June 2020, Dovgan v EUIPO (C‑142/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:487, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). 119 See, to that effect, judgment of 12 September 2024, Anglo Austrian AAB v ECB (C‑579/22 P, EU:C:2024:731, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited). 120 This cannot be ruled out in respect of the findings made in paragraph 88 et seq. of the judgment under appeal. With regard to the method of interpretation under EU law, see, inter alia, judgments of 12 January 2023, Österreichische Post (Information regarding the recipients of personal data) (C‑154/21, EU:C:2023:3, paragraph 29), and of 15 March 2022, Autorité des marchés financiers (C‑302/20, EU:C:2022:190, paragraph 63). 121 See also paragraph 92 of the judgment under appeal. 122 See paragraph 108 of the judgment under appeal. 123 Thus, the wording of the first contested decision refers, in essence, to the deterioration in the financial situation of the bank (sections 1.5, 2 and 3.1); however, in section 1.3 under the heading ‘Significant accumulation of losses’ (‘Significativo accumulo di perdite’), it deals with the accumulation of losses of EUR 1.6 billion between December 2014 and September 2018 (1.3.1) and the sizeable increase in borrowing costs due to write-down of loans (‘riduzioni del valore dei crediti’) of EUR 428 million in 2017 and EUR 219 million in 2018 (1.3.2). Lastly, in sections 2.6 (Assessment of proportionality) and 3.1 (Procedure), the aim of avoiding a further deterioration in the situation of the bank is discussed. 124 See, with regard to the settled case-law on this point, for example, judgment of 11 March 2020, Commission v Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo (C‑56/18 P, EU:C:2020:192, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited). 125 See paragraph 114 of the judgment under appeal.