Case T‑660/14
SV Capital OÜ
v
European Banking Authority (EBA)
(Economic and monetary policy — Application to initiate an investigation for an alleged breach of EU law — Decision of the EBA — Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities — Finding of the Court of its own motion — Lack of competence of the author of the act — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Partly inadmissible)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber), 9 September 2015
1.      Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion
(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU)
2.      Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Calculation
(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 58(1)(b), and 60)
3.      Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept — Limits
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 45, second para., and 53)
4.      Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Refusal of the European Banking Authority to open an investigation for alleged breach of EU law — Not included
(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1093/2010, Art. 17(2); Council Regulation No 1/2003)
5.      Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities — Included
(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1093/2010, Art. 61(1))
6.      Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility
(Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU)
7.      Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Lack of competence of the institution which adopted the contested measure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Condition — Compliance with the principle that the parties should be heard
(Art. 263 TFEU)
8.      Economic and monetary policy — Economic policy — Supervision of the EU financial sector — Power of the European Banking Authority to investigate the breach or non-application of EU law — Competence of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities to rule on an action against a decision of the European Banking Authority refusing to investigate — Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1093/2010, Arts 1, 17 to 19, 37 and 60)
1.      See the text of the decision.
(see paras 36, 37)
2.      See the text of the decision.
(see paras 38, 40)
3.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 43)
4.      Where an EU institution or body is not bound to initiate a procedure, but has a discretion which excludes the right for individuals to require it to adopt a specific position, it is not open to persons who have lodged a complaint to bring an action before the EU judicature against a decision to take no further action on their complaint. That possibility would arise only if those persons had procedural rights, comparable to those they might have in the case of a procedure under Regulation No 1/2003, enabling them to require that institution or body to inform them and to grant them a hearing.
In the case of a complaint by an individual based on Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), according to which, upon a request from one or more of the entities expressly mentioned therein, or on its own initiative, and after having informed the competent authority concerned, the EBA may investigate an alleged breach or non-application of EU law, it follows from that provision that the EBA has a discretion as regards the initiation of investigations, both when it receives a request from one of the entities and when it acts on its own initiative. Therefore, if an applicant is not one of the entities expressly mentioned in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1093/2010, it cannot be equated to complainants benefiting from procedural rights which may be enforced before the EU judicature. Consequently, the action of that individual seeking annulment of the EBA refusing to open an investigation on its own initiative, on the basis of the said Article 17, must be dismissed as inadmissible.
(see paras 46-50)
5.      It is apparent from the wording of Article 61(1) of Regulation No 1093/2010 that a decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities constitutes an act challengeable under Article 263 TFEU.
(see para. 51)
6.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 53)
7.      Infringement of essential procedural requirements within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU constitutes a ground of public policy, which must be raised by the EU judicature of its own motion. The same is true for lack of competence, within the meaning of that article. Moreover, in fulfilling its duty to raise of its own motion a ground of public policy, the EU judicature must have regard to the rule that the parties should be heard.
(see paras 57, 58)
8.      In order for an appeal to the Board of Appeal to lie against a decision of the EBA, for the purpose of Article 60 of Regulation No 1093/2010, that decision must either have been taken in accordance with the EU acts referred to in Article 1(2) of that regulation, or be one of the decisions referred to in Articles 17 to 19 of that same regulation.
With regard to a decision of the EBA refusing to open an investigation on its own initiative, on the basis of the said Article 17, at the request of an individual not being one of the entities expressly referred to in Article 17(2) and not belonging to the Banking Stakeholder Group, established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation No 1093/2010, the latter cannot be regarded as being based, having regard to its nature, on one of those provisions. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities did not have competence to decide on the appeal brought before it on the basis of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1093/2010.
(see paras 66, 69, 70, 72)