Case C‑256/22 P

Pilatus Bank plc

v

European Central Bank (ECB)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2024

(Appeal – Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the European Central Bank (ECB) – Withdrawal of authorisation – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility – Representation of a party – Authority to act granted to the lawyer – Representative not lawfully provided with authority to act)

1. Judicial proceedings – Representation of the parties – Action brought by a legal person governed by private law – Authority to act given to the lawyer – Requirement to prove that the authority to act granted to the lawyer was conferred lawfully – Obligation for the EU judicature to verify of its own motion that the authority to act in question is lawful – Condition – The authority to act is manifestly unlawful or there are factors liable to cast serious doubt on the lawfulness of the authority to act

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 51(3) and 53, first para.)

   (see paragraphs 38-47)

2. Judicial proceedings – Representation of the parties – Action brought by a legal person governed by private law – Authority to act given to the lawyer – Validity – Whether the bodies of the legal person governed by private law are entitled to bring an action – Credit institution whose authorisation has been withdrawn by the European Central Bank – Appointment by the competent national authority of a person responsible for the management of that establishment, including its legal and judicial representation – Authority to act given by the Board of Directors of the credit institution after that appointment – None – Action inadmissible

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 51(3) and 53, first para.)

   (see paragraphs 60, 61, 69-72)

See the text of the decision.