ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber)
4 January 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 Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s assessment of 15 August 2019 in which it found that PNB Banka AS was failing or likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 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) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, 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
1 In its assessment of 15 August 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 Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 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) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
2 The applicants, CR and CT, were, at the time when the contested act was adopted, shareholders of PNB Banka.
3 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 October 2019, the applicants and nine other natural or legal persons, including PNB Banka, brought an action for annulment of the contested act.
4 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 31 January 2020, the ECB raised a plea of inadmissibility.
5 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 2 March 2020, the Republic of Latvia sought leave to intervene in the proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the ECB.
6 On 26 May 2020, the President of the Tenth Chamber decided, pursuant to Article 69(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‑551/19 P and C‑552/19 P. By its judgment of 6 May 2021, ABLV Bank and Others v ECB (C‑551/19 P and C‑552/19 P, EU:C:2021:369), the Court of Justice delivered its decision in both cases.
7 By letter of 11 June 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 paragraph 3 above informed the Court, in accordance with Article 125 of the Rules of Procedure, that they were withdrawing their action.
8 Since the other natural or legal persons referred to in paragraph 3 above withdrew their action, the President of the Tenth Chamber decided, by order of 30 September 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.
9 By letter of 5 July 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 Article 51(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 28 July 2021 at the latest, it would consider closing the proceedings in so far as the applicants were concerned.
10 The applicants did not appoint a new representative within the prescribed period.
11 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 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 Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
12 In its letter of 28 October 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.
13 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.
14 In the present case, it is apparent from paragraphs 7 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.
15 Consequently, in view of the applicants’ inaction, it must be held, in accordance with Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action (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).
16 Moreover, 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 23 September 2011, Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council, T‑193/11, not published, EU:T:2011:530, paragraph 13, and of 21 January 2016, Proforec v Commission, T‑120/15, not published, EU:T:2016:50, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
Costs
17 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.
18 In 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.
19 Pursuant to Article 144(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, 4 January 2022.