Judgment of the General Court Second Chamber, 19 March 2025, Kargins v Commission, T-350/23

• Date: 19 March 2025
• Year: 2025

5

II. INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: ACTION TO ESTABLISH NON-CONTRACTUAL

LIABILI TY O F THE EUROPEAN UNION

Judgment of the Genera l Cou rt (S econd Chamb er), 19 Ma rch 2025, Karg ins v Co mmissi on,

T-350/23

Link to the judgment as published in ex tract fo rm

Non-contractual liability – State aid – Intervention of the Commission as ami cu s c uri ae before a national

court – Unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the EU institution – Plea of illegality – Sufficiently

serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – A rt ic le 29(2) of Regulation (EU)

2015/1589 – Principles of separation of powers, independence of national courts, right to an effective

remedy, impartiality and neutrality

By its judgment, the General Court dismisses the action seeking t o establish the non-contractual

liability of the European Union 1 and seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant

claims to have suffered as a result of an allegedly unlawful intervention by the European Commiss ion,

as amicus curia, in the context of a national dispute pending before the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme

Court, Latvia). In doing so, the Court rules on t he lawfulness of the mechanism for cooperation

between the European Commission and the national courts, prov ided for in Article 29(2) of R egulation

2015/1589, 2 in the context of the application of the rules on State aid.

In the present case, a former shareholder of AS Parex banka made a deposit with that bank;

ownership of that deposit was transferred to the applicant, Mr Kargins. In the context of the banking

crisis of 2008, Parex banka was the beneficiary of aid measures, which were the subject of two

Commi ssion d ecisions, ad opted in 2010 and 2014 respectiv ely. 3 Under a restruct uring plan approved

by the Commission , the applicant’s d eposit was assigned to a new entity .

In 2012, the applicant brought civ il proceedings against that entity, seeking rep aymen t of that deposit.

A first decision in favour of the applicant was delivered in 2013 and upheld in 2016 by a judgment of

the Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta (Supreme Court (Civil Division ), Latvia) .

The Latvian authorities informed the Commission of the latter judgment, in so far as it was liable to

contravene the Commission’s decisions adopted in 2010 and 2014. Subsequently, the Commission

submitted observations to the national court, as amicus curiae, on the basis of Article 29(2) of

Regula tion 2015/1589.

By judgment delivered in 2018, the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) set aside the judgment of

2016. It was in that context that the applicant brought an action before the General Court seeking

compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of the Commission’s

interv ention in the nat ional judicial proceedin gs.

Findings of the Court

Against t hat background, the Court examines, int er alia, the plea of illegality raised by the applicant

against Article 29(2) o f Regulatio n 2015/1589.

1 Based on Art icle 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

2 Council R egulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 Ju ly 2015 lay ing down detaile d rules f or the app lication of A rticle 108 of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9). U nder Article 29( 2) of Regulation 2015/1589, ‘wh er e the coherent application of

Article 107( 1) or Article 108 TF EU so req uir es, the C ommission, actin g on its own in itiative, may su bmit wr itten obse rvation s to the cou rts of

the Member States that are r esponsible for applying the State aid rules’.

3 Commission Decision 2011/364/EU of 15 September 2010 on the State aid C 26/09 (ex N 289/09) which Latvia is planning to implement for

the restru cturing of AS Parex b anka (O J 2011 L 163, p. 28) an d Commission Decision ( EU) 2015/162 of 9 July 2014 on the State a id SA .36612

(2014/C) ( ex 2013/NN) implemen ted by Latvia for Par ex (OJ 2015 L 27, p. 12).