Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/690

10.2.2025

(Case C-118/23,

Getin Holding and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Directive 2014/59/EU - Decision to take a crisis management measure in respect of a credit institution - Article 85(3) - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy of all persons affected by that decision - Compliance with a reasonable time limit - Requirement of an expeditious judicial review - Provision of national law requiring that all the actions be joined - Article 3(3) - Combining of functions by the resolution authority - Guarantee of operational independence)

(C/2025/690)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rada Nadzorcza Getin Noble Bank S.A. and Others

Defendant: Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny

Interveners: VELOBANK S.A., M.K., acting as liquidator of Getin Noble Bank S.A., in liquidation (formerly Getin Noble Bank S.A.),TD

Operative part of the judgment

must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national procedural rule under which a court with jurisdiction to hear actions against the decision of the national resolution authority to take a crisis management measure must join all the actions brought before it against that decision, where the application of that rule infringes the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

2.Article 85(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended in turn by Directive (EU) 2019/879 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court has been seised of more than one action against the decision of the national resolution authority to take a crisis management measure, and one of those actions was brought by an organ of the institution under resolution, the dismissal as unfounded of that one action alone does not permit the inference that respect for the right to an effective remedy has been ensured with regard to any other persons affected by that decision which have also brought actions against it, relying on pleas which have not been taken into account in the judgment given and which, in any event, have not been the subject of an exchange of arguments which enabled those persons to present their case.

3.Article 3(3) of Directive 2014/59, as amended by Directive 2019/879,

must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable in a situation in which the national resolution authority also performs functions as a temporary administrator within the meaning of Article 29 of that directive, as amended, or deposit guarantee functions within the meaning of Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit guarantee schemes, with the effect that it requires structural arrangements to be made in order to ensure the operational independence of that authority and to avoid any conflict of interest in relation to those functions.

4.Article 3(3) of Directive 2014/59, as amended by Directive 2019/879,

must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national resolution authority also performs ‘functions of supervision’ or ‘other functions’ within the meaning of that provision, and where there are no written internal rules intended to ensure the operational independence of that authority and prevent conflicts of interest between its resolution functions and its other functions, there can nevertheless be compliance with those requirements as the result of the introduction of organisational and other measures that are sufficient for that purpose. That provision does not mean, however, that decisions relating to resolution functions and those relating to the other functions of that authority must be made by different decision-making bodies, or that internal functional areas of the same authority are prevented from providing support services both to staff assigned to resolution functions and to staff assigned to other functions, without prejudice to rules on professional secrecy. Where written internal rules provided for in that provision exist, the fact that they are not published does not automatically invalidate decisions made by the resolution authority but means, where appropriate, in the event of actions against a decision of that authority, that it is for the latter to establish that those rules were complied with, and that the decision in question was accordingly made exclusively in order to achieve one or more resolution objectives.

—

(1)

Language of the case: Polish

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/690/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *

—