Αυτό συνέβη στις περισσότερες περιπτώσεις σχετικά με την εξυγίανση της BPE. EL 22.1.2020 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης C 22/13 24 Βάσει δεδομένων έως το 2018, η μέση διάρκεια όλων των διαδικασιών ενώπιον του ΔΕΕ ήταν περίπου 18 μήνες (18). 
EN 22 1 2020 Official Journal of the European Union C 22/13 24 Based on data up to 2018, the average duration of all proceedings at the CJEU was approximately 18 months (18) The duration of cases in front of the GC was approximately 20 months Given the number and complexity of cases in relation to the resolution of BPE and the similar pleas in law, the General Court has identified and selected six pilot cases to proceed to the second round of written procedure and oral hearing (19) Out of these six proceedings, the SRB is the sole defendant in two, the Commission in one, while the SRB and Commission are joint defendants in the remaining three All other cases have been suspended by the GC, pending a final judgment in those six pilot cases Although most cases were filed in summer 2017, the proceedings for most of the pilot cases are still on-going (20) 25 For its final accounts in 2018, the SRBŐs legal service assessed the likelihood of an outflow of economic resources as a result of the pending BPE cases to be ÔremoteŐ and therefore the SRB did not disclose any contingent liabilities This conclusion by the SRBŐs legal service was not made on the basis of any reasons or supporting arguments as to whether it felt that an outflow of economic resources was remote or not 26 WenotethatBPEwastheSRBŐsfirstresolutioncase Whilenumerouscaseshavebeenfiled,therearenotyetanyjudgments and therefore no case law at EU level Based on the reviewed audit evidence, the ECA found that applicants have claimed that the three conditions for a non-contractual liability of the Union are fulfilled While it is difficult to predict the outcome of these judicial proceedings at this stage due to the complex, specific and unprecedented legal system created by the new resolution legal framework, based on the audit evidence examined we did not find any evidence that would contradict the conclusion made by the SRB 27 In addition to the first resolution decision, the SRB announced on 24 February 2018 that it would not take resolution actions in relation to the ABLV Bank AS and its subsidiary ABLV Bank Luxembourg, as a resolution would not be in the public interest (21) The SRBŐs decision followed the ECBŐs assessment that the banks were Ôfailing or likely to failŐ due to a significant deterioration of its liquidity situation (22) In May 2018, the SRB was notified of two court cases brought before the GC against its decision not to take any resolution actions These cases are still pending and the SRB assessed the likelihood of an outflow of economic resources as a result of these pending cases as ÔremoteŐ (23) and therefore did not disclose a contingent liability No GC judgment is expected in 2019 28 We consider that contingent liabilities other than legal costs are not necessary, as both applicants are currently only asking the GC to annul the SRBŐs decision 29 The SRM Regulation provides that following a resolution decision and under certain circumstances the SRB may have to compensate NRAs for damages they have been ordered to pay by a national court (24) Therefore, it is important that the SRB is aware of damage cases pending against NRAs in participating Member States 30 Any resolution scheme approved by the SRB and endorsed by the Commission needs to be implemented at national level Therefore, following the CommissionŐs endorsement of the BPE resolution scheme, the Spanish NRA (FROB) issued an implementing decision on 7 June 2017 (25) A number of administrative appeals, liability claims and court proceedings were brought against FROBŐs decision The implementing decision is based on national law and therefore subject to national judicial review FROB provides the SRB with a monthly report on the implementation of the resolution scheme and any related appeals and claims (18) Court of Justice of the European Union: Annual report 2018; p 18 (19) SRB annual report 2018, section 5 4 1 (20) On 25 October 2019, the GC dismissed the action in the pilot case T-557/17 as inadmissible (21) The SRM Regulation foresees that banks should normally be wound-up under national insolvency proceedings The exception is resolution, when it is in the public interest (22) Failing or Likely to Fail assessment adopted by the ECB on 23 February: https://www bankingsupervision europa eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ ssm 2019_FOLTF_assessment_ABLV_Bank_AS~48046b4adb en pdf (23) SRB final annual accounts, J) p 35 (24) Article 87(4) of SRM Regulation (25) Decision adopted by FROBŐs Governing Committee on June 7, 2017 concerning Banco Popular Espaol S A : http://www frob es/en/ Lists/Contenidos/Attachments/419/ProyectodeAcuerdoreducido_EN_v1 pdf