In Case T‑732/19

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‑732/19,

PNB Banka AS, established in Riga (Latvia), and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex,(1) represented by O.Behrends, lawyer,

applicants,

v

Single Resolution Board (SRB), represented by H.Ehlers, J.Kerlin and E.Muratori, acting as Agents, and by H.‑G.Kamann, F.Louis and C.Schwedler, lawyers,

defendant,

supported by

Republic of Latvia, represented by K.Pommere and J.Davidoviča, acting as Agents,

and by

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

interveners,

APPLICATION under Article263 TFEU seeking annulment of the SRB’s decision of 15August 2019 not to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of PNB Banka AS 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 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).

2On the same day, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) decided not to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of PNB Banka (‘the contested decision’).

3CR and CT were, at the time the contested decision was adopted, shareholders of PNB Banka.

4By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25October 2019, the applicants, PNB Banka and the natural persons whose names are listed in the annex, including CR and CT, brought an action for annulment of the contested decision.

5On 4February 2020, the SRB lodged its defence at the Court Registry.

6By documents lodged at the Court Registry, on 2 and 11March 2020 respectively, the Republic of Latvia and the ECB sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the SRB. By decision of 4May 2020, the President of the Tenth Chamber of the General Court granted the Republic of Latvia and the ECB leave to intervene.

7On 12July 2021, the ECB lodged a statement in intervention at the Court Registry. The Republic of Latvia did not lodge a statement in intervention within the prescribed period.

8On 13May 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.

9By letter of 8July 2021, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that he no longer represented CR and CT.

10By letter of 3August 2021, the Court informed the applicants’ representative that he remained the Court’s contact person until CR and CT appointed a new representative. It also invited that representative to inform CR and CT 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 31August 2021 at the latest, it would consider closing the proceedings in so far as those applicants were concerned.

11CR and CT did not appoint a new representative within the prescribed period.

12By 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 so far as CR and CT were concerned, in accordance with Article131(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

13In their letters of 27October 2021, the SRB and the Republic of Latvia replied in the affirmative to the question put by the Court. The SRB added that it was appropriate for the Court to order CR and CT to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the SRB. CR and CT did not reply to the Court’s question within the prescribed period.

14Under 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.

15In the present case, it is apparent from paragraphs9 to 13 above that CR and CT are no longer represented by a lawyer before the Court and are no longer responding to the Court’s requests.

16Consequently, in view of CR and CT’s 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 in so far as it was brought by them (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).

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, CR and CT must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the SRB in so far as those costs concern them.

19Lastly, under Article138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.

20The Republic of Latvia and the ECB must therefore bear their own costs in so far as those costs concern CR and CT.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it was brought by CR and CT.

2.CR and CT shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in so far as those costs concern them.

3.The Republic of Latvia and the European Central Bank (ECB) shall bear their own costs in so far as those costs concern CR and CT.

Luxembourg, 4January 2022.

*Language of the case: English.

1The list of the other applicants is annexed only to the version notified to the parties.