General Court annuls European Central Bank’s decision rejecting request for access to documents

The General Court has annulled European Central Bank (ECB)’s decision denying Satabank plc, a Maltese credit institution, its request for access to its file: Satabank v ECB (T-72/20).

Satabank plc, a Maltese credit institution,  which had been classified as a less significant institution for the purposes of the SSM Regulation, filed a case to annul the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) that denied its request for access to its file. The ECB rejected Satabank’s request for access to its file stating that the bank was not the subject of any proceedings under Article 22 of the SSM Regulation. The bank’s lawyer requested access to the file on 24 March 2020, which was granted by the ECB on 30 April, 4 May, and 3 June 2020. Subsequently, the ECB withdrew the bank’s authorization on 30 June 2020. The bank then filed a lawsuit seeking annulment of the withdrawal decision on 9 September 2020, but it discontinued those proceedings on 18 February 2020: Satabank v ECB (T‑563/20).

First, the General Court recalled the concept of ‘file’, as used in Article 32(2) of the SSM Framework Regulation, refers directly to the documents collected by the ECB in the context of the supervisory procedure. According to that provision, the files consist of all documents obtained, produced or assembled by the ECB during the supervisory procedure. Therefore, the absence of an ongoing supervisory procedure means that the documents relating to the applicant in the ECB’s possession cannot be equated with its ‘file’ within the meaning of Article 32 of the SSM Framework Regulation.

Second, the General Court stated that given that the applicant is a less significant institution, the ECB did not exercise constant supervision, which was the responsibility of the national competent authorities. By contrast, the decision to withdraw the applicant’s authorisation falls within the ECB’s tasks, which, moreover, initiated the corresponding procedure in respect of the applicant after receiving the draft decision proposing the withdrawal of the MFSA’s authorisation.

Third, the General Court noted that the right to access a supervisory procedure file and the right of access to documents of institutions are legally distinct, but lead to similar situations. The objectives of access to the file are to ensure the rights of defense of the parties concerned are respected and complaints are dealt with diligently, while also ensuring compliance with professional secrecy in administrative procedures. The claimant requested access to the ‘file’ concerning it without making reference to any legal basis for its request. The Court noted that Regulation No 2004/258 does not require the applicant for access to specify the legal basis of their request.

The General Court concluded that, in the present case, since no supervisory procedure was pending in respect of the applicant at the time of its request for access, and therefore no ‘file’ within the meaning of Article 32 of the SSM Framework Regulation exists, that request should be examined as a request for access to documents concerning it on the basis of the general provisions, in particular Decision 2004/258. In this sense, given that the ECB did not analyse the request for access on the basis of Decision 2004/258, it cannot validly claim that that request, on the basis of that decision, was not precise.

Read the judgment here.