In Case T‑730/19

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber)

4January 2022(*)

(Economic and monetary policy– Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests– No need to adjudicate)

In Case T‑730/19,

CR,

CT,

represented by O.Behrends, lawyer,

applicants,

v

European Central Bank (ECB), represented by E.Koupepidou, A.Lefterov and F.Bonnard, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION under Article263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s assessment of 15August 2019 in which it found that PNB Banka AS was failing or likely to fail within the meaning of Article18(1) of Regulation (EU) No806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L225, p.1),

THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber),

composed of A.Kornezov, President, K.Kowalik-Bańczyk and G.Hesse (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E.Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1In its assessment of 15August 2019 (‘the contested act’), the European Central Bank (ECB) found that PNB Banka AS, a credit institution governed by Latvian law, was failing or likely to fail within the meaning of Article18(1) of Regulation (EU) No806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L225, p.1).

2The applicants, CR and CT, were, at the time when the contested act was adopted, shareholders of PNB Banka.

3By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25October 2019, the applicants and nine other natural or legal persons, including PNB Banka, brought an action for annulment of the contested act.

4By document lodged at the Court Registry on 31January 2020, the ECB raised a plea of inadmissibility.

5By document lodged at the Court Registry on 2March 2020, the Republic of Latvia sought leave to intervene in the proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the ECB.

6On 26May 2020, the President of the Tenth Chamber decided, pursuant to Article69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to stay the proceedings pending the decision of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑551/19P and C‑552/19P. By its judgment of 6May 2021, ABLV Bank and Others v ECB (C‑551/19P and C‑552/19P, EU:C:2021:369), the Court of Justice delivered its decision in both cases.

7By letter of 11June 2021, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that he no longer represented CR and no longer received instructions from CT. In the same letter, the other natural or legal persons referred to in paragraph3 above informed the Court, in accordance with Article125 of the Rules of Procedure, that they were withdrawing their action.

8Since the other natural or legal persons referred to in paragraph3 above withdrew their action, the President of the Tenth Chamber decided, by order of 30September 2021, PNB Banka and Others v ECB (T‑730/19, not published, EU:T:2021:677), that their names were to be removed from the Court’s register.

9By letter of 5July 2021, the Court informed the applicants’ representative that he remained the Court’s contact person until the applicants appointed a new representative. It also asked the applicants’ representative to inform the applicants that it was for them, pursuant to Article51(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to appoint a new representative. The Court added that, if it were not informed of such an appointment by 28July 2021 at the latest, it would consider closing the proceedings in so far as the applicants were concerned.

10The applicants did not appoint a new representative within the prescribed period.

11By way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article89 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court, by letter of 12October 2021, put a question to the parties for a written reply, asking them to state their views on the possibility for the Court to declare of its own motion, by reasoned order, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action, in accordance with Article131(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

12In its letter of 28October 2021, the ECB replied in the affirmative to the question put by the Court. The ECB added that it was appropriate for the Court to order the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the ECB. The applicants did not reply to the Court’s question within the prescribed period.

13Under Article131(2) of the Rules of Procedure, if the applicant ceases to reply to the Court’s requests, the Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the parties, declare of its own motion by reasoned order that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.

14In the present case, it is apparent from paragraphs7 to 12 above that the applicants are no longer represented by a lawyer before the Court and are no longer responding to the Court’s requests.

15Consequently, in view of the applicants’ inaction, it must be held, in accordance with Article131(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action (see, to that effect, orders of 10July 2017, NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v EUIPO– Schütz (X-Windwerk), T‑649/14, not published, EU:T:2017:516, paragraph14, and of 28May 2021, Makhlouf v Commission and ECB, T‑260/18, not published, EU:T:2021:305, paragraph15).

16Moreover, given that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in its entirety, there is also no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Republic of Latvia (see, to that effect, orders of 23September 2011, Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council, T‑193/11, not published, EU:T:2011:530, paragraph13, and of 21January 2016, Proforec v Commission, T‑120/15, not published, EU:T:2016:50, paragraph37 and the case-law cited).

Costs

17Under Article137 of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.

18In the light of the circumstances of the present case, the applicants must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the ECB, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.

19Pursuant to Article144(10) of the Rules of Procedure, since the proceedings in the main case have been concluded before the application to intervene has been decided, the applicants, the ECB and the Republic of Latvia are each to bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2.There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Republic of Latvia.

3.CR and CT shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.

4.CR and CT, the ECB and the Republic of Latvia shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

Luxembourg, 4January 2022.

*Language of the case: English.