[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]
Ladies and gentlemen, first, let me thank Henrik and Janina for inviting me here today. I would like to also praise the Institute for Law and Finance of the Goethe-University, the Center for Financial Studies and Freshfields for the organisation of this topical event.
Today, I would like to start with the general context surrounding the Single Resolution Board, before focusing on the lessons we can learn from near to 10 years of case law concerning the Single Resolution Mechanism. I will insist on the different cases we have faced so far, not forgetting those in front of our Appeal Panel.
1. A brand-new framework
This year, the Single Resolution Mechanism and the Single Resolution Board are celebrating their 10th anniversary.
The “10 years mark” is a good time to take stock.
The SRM stands strong as the second pillar of the Banking Union, ensuring that failing banks can be resolved effectively with minimal impact on taxpayers and the broader economy.
I am not about to make a list of all the achievements, from the large scale-up of our operations, to the risk reduction in the banking system through resolution planning and accumulation of MREL capacity or our successful resolution decisions.
However, I would like to mention one achievement that I believe sets us apart, even from the First Pillar of the Banking Union.
Our framework had to be built from scratch. We started from a (very) theoretical idea of dealing with bank crises to protect financial stability without using public money – without “bail-outs”.
And, only a few years later, the SRB did just that. We resolved Banco Popular in 2017 without using one euro of public funds while protecting the Spanish and the European financial stability.
Ever since, we got better at it and the banks under our remit got readier to be resolved.
Too often, progress goes unnoticed.
I’ve heard claims that the second pillar of the Banking Union is not effective and would not work in practice. I respectfully disagree.
Our work becomes visible mainly when banks with a systemic impact are resolved – and, fortunately, that’s rare. But behind the scene, resolution planning quietly strengthens the entire system. And, although the framework could certainly still be improved, we have handled successfully bank crises so far.
European banks are more resilient today thanks, in part, to that planning, to the existence of the second pillar, and to tools like the EUR 80 billion Single Resolution Fund (SRF). Over the past decade, banks and authorities have built real capabilities and loss-absorbing capacity – and that has made a difference.
It’s no coincidence that European banks withstood the 2023 turmoil. And when action was needed to preserve financial stability, we stepped in – and resolved the banks in crisis. Again, at zero cost to taxpayers.
2. An intense judicial review
Because our framework is still relatively new, complex, and because it has a direct impact on stakeholders, in particular their P&L, most of our core activities have been subject to litigation. This was expected for a new legal framework and a young authority like the SRB.
The very first case against the SRB was filed before the General Court in June 2016. It involved a Spanish bank challenging our calculation of its Single Resolution Fund’s contribution.
Ever since then, there have been cases pending before the European Court of Justice involving the SRB. A quick search in the Court’s database displays more than 450 cases in which the SRB has been, or still is, a party.
So yes, as many of you will have noticed — we get sued. A lot.
3. The role of the SRB Appeal Panel
The review of SRB decisions, however, doesn’t take place only before the European Courts in Luxembourg. In many cases, it starts in Brussels – before the SRB Appeal Panel, our administrative review body.
Now, I would like to spend a minute on the role of the SRB Appeal Panel.
The legal framework defines the scope of the Appeal Panel’s powers, limiting it to specific categories of SRB decisions. So far, most cases reviewed by the Appeal Panel have concerned requests for public access to documents. More recently, there has been a growing number of decisions relating to MREL.
That said, the Appeal Panel’s remit extends to many other critical areas: from addressing or removing substantive impediments to resolution, to imposing fines or raising extraordinary ex-post contributions for the Single Resolution Fund.
In fact, this administrative review process predates our appearances before the European Courts. The very first case before the Appeal Panel was filed in March 2016 and concerned administrative contributions. Since then, the Appeal Panel has handled more than 100 cases.
This process provides a cost-effective, timely, and expert review of SRB decisions. It allows for detailed legal and factual analysis early on, which in turn supports and facilitates any subsequent judicial review by the EU Courts.
Importantly, this administrative review plays a vital role in shaping, clarifying, and at times improving SRB decisions.
And the review is genuine. The Appeal Panel does not simply confirm the SRB’s actions. In fact, the Panel’s very first case ended not with a confirmation, but with a remittal.
Precisely because it is seen as a thorough and credible process, the appeal mechanism has helped increase acceptance of SRB decisions – and, as a result, has often reduced the need for further litigation.
This strong track record was formally recognised in the recent reform of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which confirmed – and even strengthened – the role of the SRB Appeal Panel.
Under the new rules, the Appeal Panel is now included among the independent boards of appeal to which a judicial filter mechanism applies. This means that where a decision has already been reviewed by the Appeal Panel, any subsequent review before the EU Courts will, in principle, be limited to one instance before the General Court.
That’s a clear acknowledgment of the quality and credibility of the work done so far.
We should not forget that this credibility rests on the professionalism, the diligence, and the balanced approach of the Appeal Panel members. The legal framework requires them to be individuals of “high repute” – and the current members have more than lived up to that standard.
Their contribution to the SRB’s development has been both valuable and lasting.
As the terms of many of the original members will conclude in December 2025, we look forward to continuing this important work with the next Panel in 2026.
4. The importance of the judicial review for the SRB work
The interpretation provided by the Courts is a cornerstone for the development and consolidation of any legal framework – and ours is no exception.
Guidance from the EU Courts on the contentious matters brought before them – whether they confirm the SRB’s stance or establish a new benchmark for future action – is essential. Not just for the SRB, but for the stability of the financial system as a whole.
Legal certainty is critical for the effective functioning of the Single Resolution Mechanism and the overall credibility of the resolution regime.
The Courts have recognised this on several occasions.
For example, in relation to the resolution of Banco Popular, EU Courts have confirmed that the absence of the right to be heard in the resolution procedure is justified by “the objective of ensuring financial stability” and “the need to adopt a resolution action quickly.”
Or, in other words, legal certainty helps deliver financial stability in a crisis, limiting the risk of contagion.
Of course, even the most orderly bank resolution is – by nature – a complex and turbulent affair. The resolution framework is still recent and has not been entirely tested so far. Every new resolution case, in fact, might present new challenges and may require the application of legal provisions for which no clear interpretation by the Courts exists – yet. No matter what we do in a crisis, litigation will follow.
But with each case, and each round of judicial review, we gain greater clarity – and that clarity helps us navigate the next crisis better. Courts decisions help us to strengthen the framework and to give more credibility on resolution planning.
5. Some of the most impactful cases
Let me now recall some of the most impactful cases for our work.
In the SRB early days, nearly every new ruling could be considered as a “landmark judgment”.
Naturally, these decisions have guided our work ever since.
Globally, we’re very satisfied with the high number of favourable judgments confirming our decisions and our reading of the law. Given that we operate under a still relatively new framework, that’s no small achievement.
Just by way of examples:
The Courts fully upheld the SRB’s approach in our very first resolution case – Banco Popular in 2017. They confirmed the legality of both the resolution scheme and the subsequent decision not to compensate affected shareholders and creditors.
The Courts have also supported the SRB on the vast majority of issues related to the calculation of ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, rejecting most of the banks' challenges. As of today, only a small number of points remains pending.
In the cases in which the General Court has annulled one of our decisions, we re-adopted the decision taking into account the guidance and findings of the General Court.
Operationally, the most significant of these cases have involved the Single Resolution Fund. In a few instances, the Court annulled our decisions, requiring us to revisit them and enhance our reasoning accordingly.
That enhanced reasoning has enabled both banks and courts to better understand the assumptions and conclusions underlying SRB’s decisions, as shown by subsequent judgments examining and endorsing the amended SRB’s decisions.
Similarly, after the first collections of ex ante contributions, the Courts confirmed that the SRB calculation of those contributions was the challengeable act. That implied the necessity of running “right to be heard” process.
These Courts’ decisions have been important lessons for the SRB. They have helped us strengthen the quality of our work, ensuring that our decisions are accompanied by clearer, more granular and better targeted explanations.
Likewise, the right to be heard process has proven to be a valuable element in refining our decision-making even beyond ex-ante contributions — making our reasoning sharper and, at times, allowing us to better navigate complex scenarios.
In some cases, however, we respectfully disagreed with the General Court and decided to appeal the Court’s ruling.
The decision whether to file an appeal before the Court of Justice requires a case-by-case assessment and depends on multiple factors.
Historically, the SRB has appealed mainly in situations where we disagreed with the General Court’s assessment that a part of the legal framework itself was unlawful.
For example, we appealed several decisions of the General Court on the 2017 ex-ante contribution. In its decisions, the General Court considered that certain legal provisions were illegal as they did not permit a sufficient reasoning of the calculation decision due to the SRB’s obligation to safeguard confidentiality.
We did not agree. So, we filed an appeal before the Court of Justice together with the European Commission.
The Court of Justice overturned the findings of the General Court in this regard, allowing for a balancing of the duty to provide sufficient reasoning and the obligation to safeguard confidential information.
Of course, should the Court of Justice ultimately find parts of the relevant framework illegal, the implementation of such judgment would mainly lie with the (co)legislators. That is why, in general, Commission, Council and Parliament are parties to these cases as well.
In other cases, the Court’s findings may have had a more limited impact on the actual performance of the SRB’s tasks and functions, but entail crucial findings in relation to the institutional set up of the SRM. For example:
- In the context of the Banco Popular litigation, the Court of Justice found that in the context of a resolution, the Commission endorsement of the resolution scheme is the act that deploys legal effects. Therefore, a high number of cases brought only against the SRB decision were dismissed as inadmissible.
- Also, in an appeal concerning the decision not to resolve ABLV, the Court of Justice will pronounce itself on the question whether the SRB has the competence to adopt a decision not to resolve a bank.
The Court of Justice has underlined the importance of those cases by hearing them in its “Grand Chamber” composition.
Whatever the outcome is, in practice, we assess every case very carefully and discuss its implication between the legal experts in the house but also with the National Resolution Authorities in a dedicated network. And, even more importantly, we make sure the Court’s findings from each case are put into practice in future decisions.
6. Challenges and possible improvements
Having such a relevant volume of landmark cases, the SRB has become a recognised counterparty for the Courts. Cases involving the SRB regularly appear in the Courts annual reports, including in relation to the most important topics dealt with by the Courts in a given year.
One of the main challenges from a procedural point of view is the number of appeals brought – either against a single decision, such as the decision to resolve Banco Popular, or against recurring decisions which contain the same elements, such as the calculation of ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund.
For instance, following the resolution of Banco Popular, the General Court received over 100 appeals.
On the contribution side, the first judgments focused mostly on procedural issues and did not address the more substantive arguments raised by the banks. As a result, many banks chose to appeal their contributions year after year - and others followed, raising similar claims.
This has led to the current situation, where the Court still has to decide on more than 100 pending cases.
Another challenge concerns the decision in relation to MREL, that is the minimum level of own funds and debt we expect banks to issue to absorb losses and reconstitute the capital in case of bail in. Here, every new decision the SRB adopts as part of the resolution planning cycle, replaces the previous decision which might impact any legal challenge already brought against this previous decision.
Talking about what can be improved, while the system of administrative and judicial remedies has worked well, certain aspects may still need to be clarified.
In particular, some attention may be warranted by the interplay between the administrative review by the Appeal Panel and the judicial review by the Court.
In fact, we see a number of cases in which the appellant brings proceedings at the same time before the Appeal Panel and before the Court. We are expecting the Court to clarify the sequence of legal remedy and whether such parallel approach is possible.
7. Conclusions
Let me conclude.
In the last 10 years, the main challenge of the Single Resolution Mechanism has been to put in practice a completely novel framework that was - at its inception - largely theoretical.
I think we can safely say that we succeeded at that - building resilience into the system through resolution planning and resolving banks when needed.
Our decisions in a crisis have been a success in terms of financial stability and are standing up against a thorough judicial review.
This review has helped us building our credibility, and the trust that comes with it, which will ultimately will make us successful in resolving future crises.
Thank you for your attention today.
Contact our communications team
Recent news
Related news and press releases
