Restructuring of Getin Noble Bank
The case concerns forced labor resolution of Getin Noble Bank at risk of bankruptcy, announced in 2022 by the Bank Guarantee Fund. The bank’s supervisory board appealed against this decision to the administrative court.
The compulsory restructuring was also questioned by other people, including the bank’s shareholders, holders of bonds issued by the bank and private individuals who took out loans in Swiss francs from the bank and believe that the loan agreements contain unfair contractual terms. In total, over PLN 8,000 was contributed. complaints.
The administrative court therefore asked the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. He pointed out that the law obliges him to combine all complaints in order to examine them together, but this will make issuing a decision within a reasonable time very difficult, or even impossible.
The court therefore asked whether the possibility of filing a complaint to an administrative court is essential for the protection of the rights of all complainants.
In its judgment issued on Thursday, the CJEU ruled that the compulsory restructuring of Getin Noble Bank may affect many people and thus may lead to numerous complaints. According to the Tribunal, merging these complaints may violate the right to have the case examined within a reasonable time, therefore the court may not apply provisions that prohibit it from separating the pending complaints.
Moreover, as the Tribunal assessed, a solution should be adopted “that would allow the dispute to be resolved within a reasonable time, while preventing the risk of individual formations of the court issuing irreconcilable judgments.”
The Court also recalled that EU law gives all persons affected by the decision in question the right to challenge it before a court. In his opinion, examining only the complaint lodged by the bank’s supervisory board will not guarantee the “right to an effective remedy” for other complainants.
The role of the Bank Guarantee Fund
Secondly, the Polish appeals court asked the CJEU what the independence requirements were Bank Guarantee Fundif he also served as interim administrator of a given bank and is also responsible for guaranteeing bank deposits.
In the judgment, the Tribunal assessed that EU law obliges a member state to ensure the “operational independence” of the BFG and avoid conflicts of interest. However, if there are no national provisions to ensure this independence, it can be guaranteed through the proper organization of the institution’s operation. According to the CJEU, in such a case it is up to the BFG to determine whether EU rules have been complied with and, therefore, whether its decision was taken solely with a view to achieving the resolution objectives.
From Brussels Łukasz Osiński (PAP)
