Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2024.Rada Nadzorcza Getin Noble Bank S.A. and Others v Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny.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.Case C-118/23.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU legislation regarding resolution procedures for credit institutions, specifically in relation to a case involving Getin Noble Bank in Poland. Here are the key points:Essence of the act:
The Court of Justice of the EU ruled on several questions regarding judicial review of bank resolution decisions, the right to effective remedy, and requirements for operational independence of resolution authorities. The judgment clarifies how national courts should handle multiple legal challenges to bank resolution decisions while ensuring timely judicial review.Main structure and provisions:

• The Court addressed four key questions regarding:
  • Requirements for expeditious judicial review when handling multiple legal challenges
  • Whether reviewing one lead case can satisfy effective remedy requirements for all challengers
  • Requirements for structural separation when resolution authorities perform multiple functions
  • Whether organizational measures can substitute for formal written rules on independence
• The judgment establishes that national courts:
  • Must ensure timely review even if it means not joining all related cases
  • Cannot deny other challengers their day in court by only reviewing one lead case
  • Must ensure resolution authorities maintain operational independence when performing multiple functions

Key provisions for implementation:

• National courts must prioritize expeditious review over procedural rules requiring case joinder
• Resolution authorities need adequate structural arrangements to ensure independence when performing multiple functions
• Organizational measures can satisfy independence requirements if properly documented and implemented
• Non-publication of internal rules does not automatically invalidate resolution decisions but shifts burden of proof to authorities

Full text by link