Order;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2026:123
Date: 2026-02-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment
Origin: Latvia

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 applicant’s claim for compensation are sufficiently precise only in so far as they seek compensation for alleged material damage corresponding to the value of the shortfall alleged by the applicant, estimated to be at least EUR 162 million, plus appropriate compensatory interest and default interest, as set out in paragraph 2 of the form of order sought in the application. 17 Although the applicant stated in the application that it reserves 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 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 applicant claims that the withdrawal of its authorisation prevented it from carrying out any banking business, which had the direct and foreseeable consequence of triggering its liquidation. According to the applicant, that led to its insolvency, due to the complete destruction of its assets, which resulted in a shortfall of EUR 108 million. 24 As regards the calculation of the compensation sought, estimated to be at least EUR 162 million, the applicant claims that the amount of its shortfall of EUR 108 million, consisting of EUR 21.7 million of share capital and EUR 86 million of unpaid debts, must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 on the ground that the accounting valuation of its assets does not reflect their value as a whole. 25 In that regard, it must be noted that the applicant has 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 damage alleged cannot be established solely on the basis of the assertion made in paragraph 50 of the application, concerning the information provided to the applicant by its liquidator on 8 December 2020, since that assertion is not supported by any evidence which would enable the Court to assess its veracity. 27 Second, the applicant has failed to explain the need to multiply the amount of its alleged damage by a factor of 1.5, merely alleging, without adducing any evidence, that the accounting valuation of its assets is underestimated as regards their value as a whole. 28 Next, as regards the causal link between the decision of 3 March 2016 and the alleged damage, it must be noted that the applicant does not adduce any evidence of such a link, as the ECB rightly observes. 29 In that regard, the applicant states, in paragraph 49 of the application, that it is assumed that the alleged causal link is not controversial since the termination of its business, its liquidation and the loss of its reputation are the direct and foreseeable consequences of the withdrawal of its authorisation. 30 However, the ECB and the Commission dispute the alleged causal link, submitting, inter alia, that the applicant’s alleged shortfall cannot be attributed to the decision of 3 March 2016, but rather to the way in which the applicant had conducted its business in the period prior to the withdrawal of its authorisation. 31 Furthermore, the applicant does 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 its 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 the bank’s lack of a prudent strategy. 32 In those circumstances, it must be held that the applicant, which did not lodge a reply, has not adduced any evidence to contradict the Commission’s contention that there was a capital shortfall prior to the adoption of the decision of 3 March 2016. 33 It follows that the applicant has not established, as required by the case-law cited in paragraphs 19 to 21 above, the existence and extent of the alleged damage, or the causal link between the decision of 3 March 2016 and that damage. 34 It must therefore be concluded that the conditions for the ECB to incur non-contractual liability are not satisfied, 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. 35 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the action must be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. Costs 36 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. 37 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. 38 In the present case, since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to bear its 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 applicant’s request that the ECB be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with that article. 39 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. Trasta Komercbanka AS shall bear its 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.