ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
21 December 2021 (*)
(Economic and monetary policy – Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑301/19,
PNB Banka AS, established in Riga (Latvia),
CR,
CT,
represented by O. Behrends, lawyer,
applicants,
v
European Central Bank (ECB), represented by C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and D. Segoin, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decision, notified by letter of 1 March 2019, to classify PNB Banka as a significant entity subject to direct prudential supervision,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of S. Gervasoni (Rapporteur), President, P. Nihoul and R. Frendo, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter of 1 March 2019, the European Central Bank (ECB) notified PNB Banka AS, a Latvian credit institution, of its decision to classify PNB Banka as a significant entity subject to direct prudential supervision (‘the contested decision’).
2 CR and CT were, at the time the contested decision was adopted, shareholders in PNB Banka.
3 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 May 2019, the applicants, PNB Banka, CR and CT, brought an action for annulment of the contested decision.
4 On 31 July 2019, the ECB lodged its defence at the Court Registry.
5 On 28 April 2020, the President of the Fourth Chamber decided, pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to stay proceedings until the delivery of a decision by the Court in Case T‑50/20. By order of 12 March 2021, PNB Banka v ECB (T‑50/20, under appeal, EU:T:2021:141), the Court gave its decision in that case.
6 By letter of 8 July 2021, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that he no longer represented CR and CT.
7 By letter of 27 July 2021, the Court informed the applicants’ representative that he remained its contact person until CR and CT appointed a new representative. It also requested that he inform CR and CT that, by virtue of Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it was for them to appoint a new representative. It added that, if the Court were not informed of that appointment by 31 August 2021 at the latest, it was minded to close the proceedings as concerns those two applicants.
8 CR and CT did not appoint a new representative within the prescribed period.
9 By way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court, by letter of 12 October 2021, put a question to the parties to be answered in writing asking them to state whether the Court might declare of its own motion, by way of a reasoned order, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in respect of CR and CT, in accordance with Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
10 In its letter of 28 October 2021, the ECB replied in the affirmative to the question put by the Court. It added that it was appropriate for the Court to order CR and CT to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the ECB. CR and CT did not reply to the Court’s question within the prescribed period.
11 Under Article 131(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.
12 In the present case, it is apparent from paragraphs 6 to 10 above that CR and CT are no longer represented by a lawyer before the General Court, in breach of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, and that they no longer respond to the requests of the General Court.
13 Consequently, in view of the inaction of CR and CT, it is appropriate to find, in accordance with Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is brought by them (see, to that effect, orders of 10 July 2017, NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v EUIPO – Schütz (X-Windwerk), T‑649/14, not published, EU:T:2017:516, paragraph 14, and of 28 May 2021, Makhlouf v Commission and ECB, T‑260/18, not published, EU:T:2021:305, paragraph 15).
Costs
14 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.
15 In the light of the circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to order CR and CT to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the ECB only to the extent that those costs concern CR and CT.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is brought by CR and CT.
2. CR and CT shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB) only to the extent that those costs concern CR and CT.
Luxembourg, 21 December 2021.