Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2025:568
Date: 2025-06-04
Language of the case: Latvian
Subject matter: European Central Bank (ECB);Economic and monetary policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment
Origin: Latvia

summary of the facts and background. It cannot be inferred from that fact that the contested decision is based both on Decision No 216 and on Decision No 215 to justify the withdrawal of the authorisation. As the ECB has observed, the declaration that an institution is failing or likely to fail adopted by the FCMC is part of a separate procedure from that leading to the withdrawal of authorisation. 169 In any event, as has been found in the context of the examination of the first and second pleas in law, while, in taking its decision, the ECB is required, pursuant to Article 83(2) of the SSM Framework Regulation, to take into account inter alia its assessment of the circumstances justifying withdrawal, this does not mean that it has to consider any other decision adopted by the NCAs within the scope of their competences. As has been observed in paragraph 72 above, the ECB is competent to withdraw an authorisation on the basis of findings made by the NCAs. 170 In the second place, as regards the alleged infringement of the right of access to the compliance assessment in the context of the adoption of Decision No 215, it should be observed that the applicant’s argument concerns a procedure separate from that leading to the withdrawal of the authorisation, and therefore it must be dismissed as ineffective. 171 In the third place, with regard to the allegedly insufficient time limit to exercise the right to be heard, it should be observed that the applicant was granted nine working days in total to provide its comments on the draft of the contested decision, which include four additional days in addition to the original five days. It is not disputed that the draft decision at issue contained only two documents not previously seen by the applicant. 172 In that regard, it is apparent from the first subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the SSM Framework Regulation that the party to an ECB supervisory procedure is, in principle, to be given the opportunity to provide its comments in writing within a time limit of two weeks following receipt of a statement setting out the facts, objections and legal grounds on which the ECB intends to base the supervisory decision. The third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of that framework regulation provides that, in particular circumstances, the ECB may shorten the time limit to three working days in the situations covered by Articles 14 and 15 of the Basic SSM Regulation, and therefore inter alia in the case of a decision withdrawing authorisation, to which reference is made in Article 14(5) of that regulation. 173 In view of the legislation in force, the possibility of shortening the time limit and the fact that the applicant had not previously seen just two of the documents attached to the draft decision, it does not appear that the ECB infringed the applicant’s right to be heard by providing for a five-day time limit, subsequently extended by four additional days, for the provision of comments on the draft decision. 174 It should be observed, in addition, that the applicant has not called into question the lawfulness of the shortened time limit provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the SSM Framework Regulation. That being said, it has already been held that the EU legislature had carried out an assessment as to the reasonableness of the period laid down by that provision by weighing the relevant opposing interests: on the one hand, the private interests of the credit institutions in having as much time as possible to make their observations and, on the other, the public interest in having legality restored as quickly as possible (see judgment of 6 October 2021, Ukrselhosprom PCF and Versobank v ECB, T‑351/18 and T‑584/18, EU:T:2021:669, paragraph 374). 175 It follows from all the foregoing that the fourth plea in law must be dismissed as unfounded and, accordingly, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 176 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. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the ECB. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Baltic International Bank SE to pay the costs. Porchia Jaeger Nihoul Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 4 June 2025. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Latvian.