1 By its appeal, PNB Banka AS asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 December 2022, PNB Banka v ECB (T‑275/19, EU:T:2022:781; ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB), notified by letter of 14 February 2019, to conduct an on-site inspection at its premises (‘the decision at issue’).
2 According to Article 12(1) of 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): ‘In order to carry out the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation, and subject to other conditions set out in relevant Union law, the ECB may in accordance with Article 13 and subject to prior notification to the national competent authority concerned conduct all necessary on-site inspections at the business premises of the legal persons referred to in Article 10(1) and any other undertaking included in supervision on a consolidated basis where the ECB is the consolidating supervisor in accordance with point (g) of Article 4(1). Where the proper conduct and efficiency of the inspection so require, the ECB may carry out the on-site inspection without prior announcement to those legal persons.’
3 The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 6 to 47 of the judgment under appeal. For the purposes of the present proceedings, it may be summarised as follows.
4 PNB Banka was, on the date of the decision at issue, a ‘less significant’ credit institution within the meaning of Regulation No 1024/2013 established in Latvia. It was therefore placed under the direct prudential supervision of the Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (Financial and Capital Market Commission, Latvia; ‘the FCMC’).
5 On 10 January 2019, the Supervisory Board of the ECB approved a draft decision to conduct an on-site inspection at the appellant’s premises. That draft was submitted to the Governing Council of the ECB for adoption in the context of the non-objection procedure. As the Governing Council raised no objection, that draft decision was deemed adopted on 21 January 2019.
6 By letter of 14 February 2019, the ECB informed PNB Banka that an on-site inspection would be conducted at its premises in order to examine the credit risk.
7 That on-site inspection took place from 11 March to 12 August 2019.
8 On 15 August 2019, the ECB concluded that PNB Banka was failing or likely to fail. On the same date, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) decided not to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of PNB Banka.
9 On 22 August 2019, the FCMC requested the Rīgas pilsētas Vidzemes priekšpilsētas tiesa (Riga City Court (Vidzeme District), Latvia) to declare PNB Banka insolvent.
10 On 12 September 2019, that court declared PNB Banka insolvent and appointed an insolvency administrator to deal with the insolvency proceedings (‘the insolvency administrator’), to whom it transferred all the powers of PNB Banka and of its board of directors. That court rejected the request of PNB Banka’s board of directors to maintain its power to represent PNB Banka in the context of the action against the ECB’s assessment that PNB Banka was failing or likely to fail, against the SRB’s decision not to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of PNB Banka and against the FCMC’s decision to initiate insolvency proceedings.
11 On the same date, the FCMC requested the ECB to withdraw PNB Banka’s authorisation.
12 On 17 February 2020, the ECB withdrew that authorisation, with effect from 18 February 2020.
13 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 April 2019, PNB Banka and two of its shareholders, CR and CT, brought an action for annulment of the decision at issue.
14 They relied on 10 pleas in support of their action. The first plea alleged that the ECB lacked competence to adopt the decision at issue. The second and third pleas alleged infringements of Article 12 of Regulation No 1024/2013. The fourth to ninth pleas alleged infringement of, respectively, the principle of proportionality, the right to be heard, the obligation to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case, the obligation to state reasons, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty and the principle of equal treatment. The tenth plea alleged infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 1024/2013 and misuse of powers.
15 By decision of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 28 August 2019, the European Commission was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the ECB.
16 By letter of 8 July 2021, the representative of PNB Banka, CR and CT informed the General Court that he no longer represented CR and CT. By order of 21 December 2021, the General Court decided that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by CR and CT.
17 By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action brought by PNB Banka.
18 First, in paragraphs 64 to 72 of that judgment, the General Court rejected PNB Banka’s requests, made on 28 April and 28 June 2021, for a stay of proceedings; those requests were based on an alleged refusal by the insolvency administrator to grant, to the lawyer authorised by PNB Banka’s board of directors, access to PNB Banka’s premises, information and financial resources.
19 Second, in paragraphs 118 to 271 of that judgment, the General Court rejected all the pleas raised by PNB Banka.
20 By its appeal, PNB Banka claims that the Court of Justice should: - set aside the judgment under appeal; - annul the decision at issue; - order the ECB to bear the costs of both sets of proceedings; and - if the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the action at first instance, refer the case back to the General Court.
21 The ECB contends that the Court of Justice should: - order PNB Banka’s representative to certify that the power of attorney under which he acts has not been revoked; - dismiss the appeal as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded; and - order PNB Banka to pay the costs.
22 The Commission contends that the Court of Justice should: - dismiss the appeal as manifestly inadmissible; and - order PNB Banka to pay the costs.
23 By decision of the President of the Court of 27 June 2023, the present proceedings were stayed pending the final decision in Cases C‑750/21 P and C‑256/22 P. Following the delivery of the judgments of 8 February 2024, Pilatus Bank v ECB (C‑750/21 P, EU:C:2024:124), and of 8 February 2024, Pilatus Bank v ECB (C‑256/22 P, EU:C:2024:125), the proceedings were resumed by decision of the President of the Court of 21 February 2024.
24 By decision of the President of the Court of 21 February 2024, taken on the basis of Article 119(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, PNB Banka’s representative was requested to produce a power of attorney authorising him to represent PNB Banka in the present proceedings.
25 On 2 April 2024, PNB Banka lodged a reply containing clarifications and new documents as regards the existence of a power of attorney authorising him to represent PNB Banka in the present proceedings.
26 In support of its appeal, PNB Banka relies on a single ground, alleging infringement of its procedural rights.
27 It states that its appeal relates mainly to the difficulties concerning its representation by a lawyer in the proceedings before the General Court.
28 PNB Banka submits that its appeal was drawn up under very difficult circumstances and that it is based primarily on the hope that the Courts of the European Union will reconsider their position in the light of the current situation in Latvia. It states, in that regard, that the Republic of Latvia firmly rejects any argument that a person other than the insolvency administrator may represent PNB Banka, and claims that that Member State exerts significant pressure on PNB Banka’s representatives other than the insolvency administrator.
29 PNB Banka submits that the judgment under appeal is based on the finding that it did not initiate proceedings in Latvia against the insolvency administrator. Such a finding is based on the idea that the Republic of Latvia ensures a certain level of judicial protection. However, PNB Banka argues that that is not the case because, under Latvian law, only the insolvency administrator is authorised to represent PNB Banka.
30 PNB Banka argues that the General Court erred in confining itself to making findings relating to the actions incumbent on the Latvian courts in order to ensure a certain level of judicial protection and thus went against the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923), from which it follows that judicial protection must not be purely theoretical and illusory.
31 PNB Banka also asks the Court of Justice to take account of its special responsibility for ensuring that the law is observed, in accordance with the judgments of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest (C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023), and of 15 May 2019, Achema and Others (C‑706/17, EU:C:2019:407).
32 In PNB Banka’s view, it follows from the approach adopted by the General Court that decisions on prudential matters, such as license withdrawals, enjoy structural immunity from any effective judicial review, since a judicial review would require the effective representation of the applicant.
33 The ECB and the Commission contend that PNB Banka’s single ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible. The ECB adds that that ground of appeal is, in any event, unfounded.
34 It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure, an appeal may only seek to have set aside, in whole or in part, the decision of the General Court as set out in the operative part of that decision.
35 Furthermore, it follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as from Article 168(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure, that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal, failing which the appeal or the ground of appeal in question will be dismissed as inadmissible (order of 26 April 1993, Kupka-Floridi v ESC, C‑244/92 P, EU:C:1993:152, paragraphs 8 and 9, and judgments of 16 December 2020, Council v K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others, C‑597/18 P, C‑598/18 P, C‑603/18 P and C‑604/18 P, EU:C:2020:1028, paragraph 127, and of 25 January 2022, Commission v European Food and Others, C‑638/19 P, EU:C:2022:50, paragraph 75).
36 Thus, an appeal supported by an argument that is not sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Court to exercise its powers of judicial review, in particular because essential elements on which the argument is based are not indicated sufficiently coherently and intelligibly in the text of the appeal, which is worded in a vague and ambiguous manner in that regard, does not satisfy those requirements and must be dismissed as inadmissible. The Court has also held that an appeal lacking any coherent structure which simply makes general statements and contains no specific indications as to the points of the judgment under appeal which may be vitiated by an error of law must be dismissed as clearly inadmissible (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, thyssenkrupp v Commission, C‑581/22 P, EU:C:2024:821, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).
37 The Court has also repeatedly held that a mere abstract statement of the grounds in the application does not alone satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure (order of 5 February 2025, Dakem v Commission, C‑308/24 P, EU:C:2025:55, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
38 In the present case, although the form of order sought in the appeal formally seeks to have set aside the judgment under appeal and the decision at issue, it must nevertheless be noted that the single ground put forward by PNB Banka in its appeal does not criticise the General Court’s analysis of the pleas which it raised in its application at first instance and that that single ground of appeal does not refer to any paragraph in that analysis.
39 Thus, the only element of that judgment which is specifically challenged in the appeal is, in essence, a finding in paragraph 69 of that judgment, which appears in the section of that judgment relating to the General Court’s examination of two requests for a stay of proceedings submitted to it by PNB Banka.
40 It should be noted, first, that that section of the judgment under appeal is part of the General Court’s reasoning intended only to reject those requests for a stay of proceedings. That part, which is clearly separate from the grounds on which the General Court dismissed the action on the merits, cannot therefore be regarded as forming the basis of the operative part of that judgment.
41 Second, PNB Banka has not criticised the General Court’s rejection of those requests for a stay of proceedings and has not provided any explanation as to the link that it wishes to establish between (i) the alleged error, which, moreover, it has not clearly identified and which it claims was made by the General Court in the examination of those requests for a stay of proceedings and (ii) the operative part of the judgment under appeal.
42 As to the remainder, the appeal merely sets out allegations formulated in general terms, relating to the alleged pressure exerted by the Republic of Latvia on certain representatives of PNB Banka and relating to the right to effective judicial protection.
43 However, that line of argument is not sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Court of Justice to carry out its review of legality. In particular, PNB Banka has not in any way specified how its criticisms of Latvian law, which do not relate to the General Court’s analysis of the pleas which it raised in its application at first instance, are such as to justify setting aside the judgment under appeal.
44 It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the single ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible and that, consequently, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.
45 Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs.
46 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which is applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
47 Since the ECB and the Commission have applied for costs and PNB Banka has been unsuccessful, PNB Banka must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the ECB and by the Commission. 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB) and by the European Commission.