Judgment of the General Court Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, 7 December 2022, PNB Banka v ECB, T-330/19

• Date: 07 December 2022
• Year: 2022

25

It adds that the implementation of the legislative provisions

44

on the basis of which that decision is

adopted is not subject to there being exceptional circumstances.

Secondly, as regards the right of access of a party concerned to the file in the context of a supervisory

procedure, the Court rules that such access requires the submission of a request by that party. When

sufficiently precise information has been disclosed, enabling the entity concerned properly to state its

point of view on the planned measure, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence does not

mean that that the ECB is obliged spontaneously to grant access to the documents in the file.

Thirdly, as regards the purpose of the report

45

accompanying a request from the national competent

authority to the ECB for the latter to decide to exercise direct prudential supervision in order to

ensure the consistent application of high supervisory standards, the Court points out that, even

though the report is compulsory, its purpose is, inter alia, to ensure the proper transmission of

information between the national competent authority and the ECB. More specifically, the report

enables the ECB to assess the request for the taking-over of prudential supervision submitted by the

national competent authority and helps to ensure, if the ECB grants that request, a harmonious

transfer of the competences associated with that supervision. That report does not therefore

constitute a procedural guarantee intended to protect the interests of the credit institution concerned

or, a fortiori, an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 7 December

2022, PNB Banka v ECB, T-330/19

Link to the full text of the judgment

Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Article 22 of Directive

2013/36/EU – Opposition of the ECB to the acquisition of qualifying holdings in a credit institution –

Starting point of the assessment period – Intervention by the ECB during the initial stage of the procedure

– Criteria of financial stability of the proposed acquirer and compliance with prudential requirements –

Existence of reasonable grounds for opposing the acquisition on the basis of one or more assessment

criteria – Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure – Request for a hearing without a statement of reasons

The applicant, PNB Banka AS, is a credit institution incorporated under Latvian law which, on the date

of the contested decision, was a ‘less significant’

46

credit institution and was therefore subject to

direct prudential supervision by the Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija (Financial and Capital Market

Commission, Latvia; ‘the FCMC’). On 1 October 2018, the applicant notified the FCMC of its intention to

acquire directly a qualifying holding in another Latvian credit institution (‘the acquisition’). On 1 March

2019, the FCMC submitted to the European Central Bank (ECB) a proposal for a decision,

47

to the

effect of an opposition to the proposed acquisition. By decision notified on 21 March 2019, the ECB

opposed the acquisition, since neither the criterion of financial soundness of the proposed acquirer

nor the criterion of compliance with prudential requirements was satisfied (‘the contested decision’).

Hearing an action for annulment of that decision, the General Court rules on a number of issues

which have not previously been addressed. It examines, first of all, the ECB’s right to intervene in the

44

Namely Article 6(5)(b) of the SSM Regulation.

45

Under Article 68(3) of the SSM Framework Regulation.

46

Within the meaning of Article 6( 4) 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; ‘the SSM Regulation’).

47

Within the meaning of Article 15(2) of the SSM Regulation.