Judgment of the Court Grand Chamber of 13 September 2022, Banka Slovenije, C-45/21

• Date: 13 September 2022
• Year: 2022

37

does not have the consequence of depriving it of legal effect as a measure capable of interrupting the

limitation period provided for in Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589.

In the present case, the letter by which the Commission sent a request for information to the Hellenic

Republic informing that State that it was in possession of information concerning unlawful aid and, if

necessary, that that aid would have to be repaid was, in the absence of any change in the subject

matter of the investigation during the investigation procedure, such as to interrupt the ten-year

period provided for in Article 17(1) of Regulation 2015/1589.

In that connection, since that limitation period applies only to relations between the Commission and

the Member State to which the aid recovery decision is addressed, the Court rejects the Hellenic

Republic’s argument that the Commission’s power to recover aid is time -barred with regard to

undertakings other than the one specifically named in the request for information sent to the

Member State.

Finally, in the fourth and last place, as regards the infringement of the principle of the protection of

legitimate expectations alleged by the Hellenic Republic, the Court notes that the Member State

concerned cannot plead such an infringement when it did not notify the aid schemes in question in

good time.

In the light of those considerations, the Court dismisses the action in its entirety.

9. ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY: EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF

CENTRAL BANKS

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2022, Banka Slovenije, C-45/21

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – European System of Central Banks – National Central Bank – Directive

2001/24/EC – Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions – Compensation for damage resulting

from the adoption of reorganisation measures – Article 123 TFEU and Article 21.1 of Protocol (No 4) on

the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank – Prohibition of

monetary financing of Member States in the euro area – Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of that protocol –

Independence – Disclosure of confidential information

Following the global financial crisis, national legislative provisions authorised the Banka Slovenije

(Central Bank of Slovenia) to cancel certain financial instruments where to maintain them would lead

to the likelihood of insolvency for a credit institution and threaten the financial system as a whole.

78

Subsequently, a law established two separate and alternative liability regimes in respect of that

central bank for damage caused to former holders of cancelled financial instruments.

First, that liability may be incurred where it is established that the cancellation of a financial

instrument did not constitute a necessary measure or where the principle that no creditor may be

more disadvantaged than in the event of failure has been infringed. The Central Bank of Slovenia may

78

This concerns reorganisation measures under Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the

reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15). The Court has previously ruled on two occasions in a context

relating to those Slovenian reorganisation measures and their implementation, but on questions that are very different from those raised in

the present case (judgments of 19 July 2016, Kotnik and Others, C-526/14, EU:C:2016:570, and of 17 December 2020, Commission v Slovenia

(ECB Archives), C-316/19, EU:C:2020:1030).