Case T-510/25: Action brought on 28 July 2025 – BAWAG PSK v ECB
Date: 2025-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, claim, equal treatment, indemnification, interest, national law, rights of the defence








C_202505591EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5591


27.10.2025






Action brought on 28 July 2025 – BAWAG PSK v ECB


(Case T-510/25)

(C/2025/5591)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: D. Bliesener, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul under Article 263 TFEU the defendant’s decision of 13 May 2025 (ECB/2025/NP5) rejecting the applicant’s claim for the payment of default interest on the absorption interest repaid following judgment of 28 February 2024, BAWAG PSK v ECB (T-667/21, EU:T:2024:131);










—


order the defendant under Article 268 TFEU to pay the applicant financial compensation of EUR 3 029 325,31 for the harm sustained by the applicant because the defendant refuses to pay the applicant, for the period from (and including) 9 September 2021 to (but excluding) 22 April 2024, default interest on the amount of EUR 19 332 923,81, calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the defendant to its principal refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points;










—


in the alternative, should the Court dismiss the second head of claim, order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of another sum deemed appropriate by the Court, calculated on the basis of a rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court;










—


declare that the amount to be paid by the defendant in accordance with the second head of claim (or, in the alternative, in accordance with the third head of claim) shall, for the period from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until payment in full by the defendant, bear interest at the rate applied by the defendant to its principal refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points or, in the alternative, at another rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant is obliged to pay default interest on the absorption interest repaid following judgment of 28 February 2024, BAWAG PSK v ECB (T-667/21, EU:T:2024:131):






—


the defendant’s refusal to pay default interest following the annulment of its decision imposing absorption interest in the amount of EUR 19 332 932,82 by the General Court constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of its obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the General Court pursuant to Article 266(1) TFEU which is the direct cause of the damage sustained by the applicant consisting of the deprivation of default interest;










—


the defendant is the correct counterparty to the applicant’s claim for payment of default interest. The defendant, not the Republic of Austria, is exclusively responsible for the damage because it was the decision-making and formative authority with respect to the annulled decision imposing absorption interest and the contested decision rejecting the claim for the payment of default interest;










—


it is irrelevant to the applicant’s claim for default interest pursuant to Article 340 TFEU that the annulled decision was based on a provision of national Austrian law;










—


the defendant would not be authorised to apply Austrian law governing the consequences of a judgment under Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013; (1)











—


the application of Austrian law concerning the consequences of the General Court Judgment would also compromise the uniform supervision and risk unequal treatment of credit institutions.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of right to be heard, since the applicant has not been granted the opportunity to comment in writing on the facts, objections and legal grounds relevant to the defendant’s supervisory decision.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5591/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)