T-428/21

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) 23 March 2026 (*) ( Non-contractual liability – Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the ECB – Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation – Material damage – Causal link – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law ) In Case T‑428/21, Ivan Fursin, residing in Kyiv (Ukraine), and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, (1) represented by O. Behrends, lawyer, applicants, v European Central Bank (ECB), represented by C. Hernández Saseta, A. Witte and A. Pizzolla, acting as Agents, defendant, supported by Council of the European Union, represented by I. Gurov and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents, and by European Commission, represented by D. Triantafyllou and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents, interveners, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber), composed of I. Gâlea, President, M.J. Costeira (Rapporteur) and T. Tóth, Judges, Registrar: T. Henze, Deputy Registrar, having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular: –        the decisions of 3 February 2022 and of 12 January 2023 to stay the proceedings, –        the measures of organisation of procedure of 8 July and of 17 October 2025 and the responses of the applicants and of the ECB, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 July and 4 November 2025, respectively, –        the reassignment of the case to the Eighth Chamber of the General Court, makes the following Order 1        By their action under Article 268 TFEU, the applicants, Mr Ivan Fursin and the other natural or legal persons whose names are set out in the annex, seek compensation for the damage which they claim to have suffered following Decision ECB/SSM/2016 – 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/2 WOANCA‑2016‑0005 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 11 July 2016 withdrawing the authorisation of Trasta Komercbanka AS for access to the activity of credit institutions (‘the decision of 11 July 2016’), and the conduct of the ECB relating to that decision.  Background to the dispute 2        By Decision ECB/SSM/2016 – 529900WIP0INFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA‑2016‑0005 of 3 March 2016 (‘the decision of 3 March 2016’), the ECB withdrew the authorisation of Trasta Komercbanka for access to the activity of credit institutions and rejected its request for suspension of the effects of that decision for a period of one month. Among the grounds for the withdrawal of the authorisation, the ECB referred, inter alia, to Trasta Komercbanka’s failure to meet capital requirements, the breach of limits to large exposures to a client or a group of connected clients and the failure to comply with requirements concerning the functioning of the internal control systems of credit institutions, anti-money laundering and the pursuit of a prudent strategy. 3        By application of 13 May 2016, registered as Case T‑247/16, an action for annulment of the decision of 3 March 2016, lodged on behalf of Trasta Komercbanka and some of its shareholders, was brought before the General Court. 4        Following a request for review of the decision of 3 March 2016, the ECB adopted the decision of 11 July 2016, by which it again decided to withdraw Trasta Komercbanka’s authorisation for access to the activity of credit institutions. 5        By application of 23 September 2016, registered as Case T‑698/16, an action for annulment of the decision of 11 July 2016 was brought before the General Court. 6        By order of 12 September 2017, Fursin and Others v ECB (T‑247/16, not published, EU:T:2017:623), the General Court held, first, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by Trasta Komercbanka against the decision of 3 March 2016 due to the revocation of its representative’s power of attorney and, second, that the action brought by the shareholders against that decision was admissible. By judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Others v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923), the Court of Justice set aside that order, dismissed the action brought by the shareholders on the ground that they were not directly concerned by the decision of 3 March 2016 and referred the case back to the General Court for it to rule again on the action brought by Trasta Komercbanka.  Events subsequent to the bringing of the present action 7        By order of 17 November 2021, Trasta Komercbanka v ECB (T‑247/16 RENV, not published, EU:T:2021:809), the General Court ruled that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by Trasta Komercbanka for annulment of the decision of 3 March 2016 as a result of the disappearance of the subject matter of the proceedings, given that that decision had been replaced, with retroactive effect, by the decision of 11 July 2016. Since no appeal was lodged against that order, the latter became final. 8        Following an appeal brought against the judgment of 30 November 2022, Trasta Komercbanka and Others v ECB (T‑698/16, not published, EU:T:2022:737), by which the General Court had dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of 11 July 2016, the Court of Justice held, inter alia, that that decision had had the effect of abrogating and replacing the decision of 3 March 2016, without, however, having eliminated that decision retroactively (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 May 2025, Trasta Komercbanka v ECB, C‑90/23 P, not published, EU:C:2025:369, paragraphs 105 to 111).  Forms of order sought 9        The applicants claim that the General Court should: –        order the ECB to pay compensation in respect of the harm suffered as a result of the decision of 11 July 2016 and the ECB’s conduct relating to that decision; –        order the ECB to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 134 or 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. 10      The ECB, supported by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, contends that the Court should: –        dismiss the action; –        order the applicants to pay the costs.  Law  The action brought on behalf of Mr Buimisters 11      By a measure of organisation of procedure of 8 July 2025, taken following the death of Mr Igors Buimisters, the applicants’ representative was requested to inform the Court of the existence of any successors in title and, if applicable, of their wish to pursue the present action. 12      In response to the measure of organisation of procedure, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that none of the successors in title had contacted him or authorised him to pursue the present proceedings. 13      In view of the death of Mr Buimisters and the absence of an indication as to any successors in title taking over the proceedings, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action so far as it concerns Mr Buimisters.  The action brought on behalf of the other applicants 14      Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, it may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. 15      In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information available to it from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.  The scope of the claim for compensation 16      Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the proceedings before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and to Article 76(e) of the Rules of Procedure, the application initiating proceedings must contain the form of order sought by the applicant. The form of order sought must be set out in a precise and unequivocal manner, since otherwise the General Court would risk giving a ruling infra petita or ultra petita and disregarding the rights of the defendant. Thus, subject to the existence of certain circumstances provided for in Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure, only the form of order set out in the originating application may be taken into consideration and the substance of the application must be examined solely with reference to the order sought in the application initiating proceedings (see judgment of 8 November 2017, De Nicola v Court of Justice of the European Union, T‑99/16, not published, EU:T:2017:790, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited). 17      Furthermore, in accordance with Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, the application must state the subject matter of the dispute, the pleas and arguments put forward, and a brief statement of those pleas in law. Those elements must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the General Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible, for the basic legal and factual particulars relied upon to be stated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see order of 16 May 2024, Versobank v ECB, T‑421/23, not published, EU:T:2024:322, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). 18      In order to meet those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by the ECB must contain, inter alia, information identifying the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution, the reasons why it considers there to be a causal link between that conduct and the damage allegedly suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (see, to that effect, order of 16 May 2024, Versobank v ECB, T‑421/23, not published, EU:T:2024:322, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). 19      As regards the nature and extent of the alleged damage, an applicant may not have put in figures the amount of the loss which it submits it has suffered, while clearly indicating the evidence which enables its nature and extent to be assessed, so that the defendant is in a position to conduct its defence. In such circumstances, the absence of precise figures in the application does not affect the other party’s rights of defence (order of 22 July 2005, Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission, T‑376/04, EU:T:2005:297, paragraph 55). 20      However, a claim for any unspecified form of damages is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as manifestly inadmissible (see order of 10 July 2020, KF v SatCen, T‑619/19, not published, EU:T:2020:337, paragraphs 54 to 58 and the case-law cited). 21      In the present case, it must be held that the applicants’ claim for compensation is sufficiently precise only in so far as it seeks compensation for the material damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the decision of 11 July 2016, corresponding to the value of the share capital that the applicants hold in Trasta Komercbanka, estimated to be at least EUR 25 million, plus appropriate compensatory interest and default interest. 22      Although the applicants stated in the application that they reserve the right to specify or quantify other heads of damage at a later date, including future loss of earnings and loss of reputation, they have not provided any details that would enable the Court to assess the reality or extent of such damage. It follows that the claim for compensation for that damage is, in any event, manifestly inadmissible, in accordance with the principles set out in paragraphs 16 to 20 above. 23      Consequently, only the claim seeking compensation for the material damage referred to in paragraph 21 above will be examined below.  The substance 24      Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the ECB is, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, to make good any damage caused by it or by its servants in the performance of their duties. 25      In order for the ECB to incur non-contractual liability, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, a number of cumulative conditions must be satisfied, namely the ECB’s conduct must be unlawful, actual damage must have been suffered and there must be a causal link between the alleged conduct and the damage pleaded. Given the cumulative nature of those conditions, the action must be dismissed in its entirety where one of those conditions is not satisfied (see order of 25 July 2023, D’Agostino and Dafin v ECB, T‑424/22, not published, EU:T:2023:443, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited). 26      As regards the condition relating to the damage pleaded, it is important to emphasise that that damage must be actual, certain and quantifiable. By contrast, purely hypothetical and indeterminate damage does not give rise to compensation. It is for the applicant to produce to the Court the evidence to establish the existence and the extent of the damage suffered (see judgment of 26 October 2011, Dufour v ECB, T‑436/09, EU:T:2011:634, paragraph 192 and the case-law cited). 27      As regards the condition relating to a causal link, that condition concerns a sufficiently direct causal nexus between the ECB’s alleged conduct and the damage, the burden of proof of which rests on the applicant, so that the conduct complained of must be the determining cause of the damage (see order of 25 July 2023, Nardi v ECB, T‑131/23, not published, EU:T:2023:444, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). 28      In the present case, the applicants claim that the withdrawal of Trasta Komercbanka’s authorisation had the direct and immediate effect of bringing its banking activities to an end and of triggering its liquidation. According to the applicants, that led to the complete destruction of Trasta Komercbanka’s assets and to its insolvency, with the result that the applicants’ shareholdings in Trasta Komercbanka lost any value. 29      As regards the calculation of the compensation sought, estimated to be at least EUR 25 million, the applicants claim damage in an amount corresponding to the value of the 75.91% of shares which they hold in the share capital of Trasta Komercbanka. In that regard, they submit that the amount of the share capital set out in Trasta Komercbanka’s balance sheet, amounting to EUR 21.7 million, must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 on the ground that the accounting valuation of Trasta Komercbanka’s assets does not reflect their value as a whole. 30      The ECB, supported by the Council and the Commission, disputes the reality of the alleged damage and the existence of a causal link between the alleged damage and the decision of 11 July 2016. 31      In that regard, it must be noted that the applicants have not adduced any evidence of the damage for which they are seeking compensation. 32      First, the reality and extent of the alleged damage cannot be established solely on the basis of the assertion made in paragraph 113 of the application, concerning the information provided to the applicants by the liquidator of Trasta Komercbanka on 8 December 2020, since that assertion is not supported by any evidence that would enable the Court to assess its veracity. 33      Second, the applicants have failed to explain the need to multiply the amount of Trasta Komercbanka’s alleged shortfall by a factor of 1.5, and merely claim, without adducing any evidence, that the accounting valuation of its assets did not adequately reflect their value as a whole. 34      Nor have the applicants established a causal link between the decision of 11 July 2016 and the alleged damage. 35      In that context, in paragraph 100 of the application, they merely stated that the termination of Trasta Komercbanka’s business and its liquidation were direct and foreseeable consequences of the decision of 11 July 2016, stating that it is assumed that the link between that decision and the alleged damage is not disputed. 36      However, it is apparent from the file that the termination of Trasta Komercbanka’s business and the triggering of its liquidation took place as early as March 2016. 37      Even if the alleged damage resulted from the termination of Trasta Komercbanka’s business and its liquidation, the applicants have still failed to substantiate the reasons why the decision of 11 July 2016 should be regarded as the determining cause of that damage within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 27 above, given that, on the date of that decision, Trasta Komercbanka had already been placed in liquidation. 38      Furthermore, the applicants have not substantiated the reasons why the withdrawal of Trasta Komercbanka’s authorisation is, in their view, the determining cause of the alleged deterioration in its balance sheet, when that withdrawal was based, inter alia, on a failure to meet capital requirements, on a breach of limits to large exposures, and on a lack of a prudent strategy, as recalled in paragraph 2 above. 39      In those circumstances, it must be held that the applicants, who did not lodge a reply, have not adduced any evidence to contradict the Commission’s contention that Trasta Komercbanka’s capital shortfall existed prior to the withdrawal of its authorisation. 40      In the light of the principles recalled in paragraph 25 above, it must be concluded that the conditions for the ECB to incur non-contractual liability are not satisfied, and it is not necessary to assess the legality of the decision of 11 July 2016 and the conduct of the ECB relating to that decision. 41      It follows that the present action must be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.  Costs 42      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 43      Furthermore, under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. 44      In the present case, since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the ECB, in accordance with the form of order sought by the ECB. There are no reasons connected to equity or unreasonable or vexatious costs, as referred to in Article 135 of those rules, for granting the applicants’ request that the ECB be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with that article. 45      However, 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. In view of the death of Mr Buimisters during the course of the proceedings, it is appropriate to decide not to order him to pay the ECB’s costs. 46      In addition, in accordance with Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Council and the Commission are to bear their own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders: 1.      The action is dismissed. 2.      Mr Ivan Fursin and the other legal persons whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). 3.      Mr Igors Buimisters, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. Luxembourg, 23 March 2026. T. Henze, Deputy Registrar   I. Gâlea Registrar   President *      Language of the case: English. 1      The list of the other applicants is annexed only to the version sent to the parties.