CJEU Case T-366/23 / Judgment

YH v European Central Bank
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
Typ
Decision
Decision date
19/11/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:T:2025:1037
  • CJEU Case T-366/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Directive 2013/36/EU – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB – Assessment of acquisitions of qualifying holdings – Opposition to the acquisition of a qualifying holding – Right to be heard – Concept of ‘qualifying holding’ – Reputation and professional competence of the proposed acquirer – Rights protected by the Charter – Proportionality

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds,

    THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

    hereby:

    1. Dismisses the action;
    2. Orders YH to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    64. The applicant adds that, pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter and the preparatory documents for the transposition into German law of Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1), the ninth sentence of Paragraph 2c(1) of the KWG must be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of a confirmation of completeness, the assessment period begins to run two days after receipt of the notification by BaFin.

    ...

    82. On that basis alone, the ECB did not err in law and, in particular, did not infringe Article 41 of the Charter in finding that the assessment period ran from 8 February 2023 to 5 May 2023.

    ...

    137. The applicant submits that, in the light of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, Article 31 of the SSM Framework Regulation and the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of the SSM Regulation, the ECB infringed her right to be heard.

    ...

    145. It should be recalled that Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter provides that the right to good administration includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would adversely affect him or her is taken.

    ...

    147. As is apparent from its very wording, Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter is of general application. It follows that the right to be heard must be observed in all procedures which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting a person, even where the applicable legislation does not expressly provide for such a procedural requirement (see judgment of 22 November 2023, Del Valle Ruíz and Others v SRB, T‑302/20, T‑303/20 and T‑307/20, EU:T:2023:735, paragraph 142 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    164. In the first place, it should be borne in mind, first, that the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU provides that legal acts of the institutions of the Union are to state the reasons on which they are based and, second, that the right to good administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter, imposes an obligation on the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union to give reasons for their decisions (judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and SRB, C‑584/20 P and C‑621/20 P, EU:C:2021:601, paragraph 102).

    165. The statement of the reasons for the decision of an EU institution, body, office or agency is particularly important in so far as it allows persons concerned to decide in full knowledge of the circumstances whether it is worthwhile to bring an action against the decision, and the court with jurisdiction to review it; it is therefore a requirement for ensuring that the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter is effective (see judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and SRB, C‑584/20 P and C‑621/20 P, EU:C:2021:601, paragraph 103 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    335. The applicant alleges several infringements of the Charter by the contested decision.

    336. According to the applicant, first, in finding that she is of bad repute solely on the basis of her marriage and the fact that she is entirely dependent on her husband, the contested decision infringed Article 7 (respect for private and family life), Article 9 (right to marry and right to found a family) and Article 33 (family and professional life) of the Charter. Next, by failing to take into account the objectives pursued by the applicant in connection with the proposed acquisition and by being founded on prejudice, the contested decision also infringed Article 21 (regarding non-discrimination) of the Charter. Further, in concluding that the applicant’s husband was not of good repute, with the consequence that she herself was considered to be of bad repute, the ECB infringed Article 48 (concerning the presumption of innocence and right of defence) of the Charter. Lastly, in so far as it would lead to the transfer of the Target outside the Warburg family, save in the event of the death of the applicant’s husband, the contested decision infringed Article 17 (right to property) of the Charter.

    337. The ECB disputes any infringement of the Charter.

    338. As regards the alleged infringement of Article 21 of the Charter, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, under 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 in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute and Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, an application must state the subject matter of the proceedings, the pleas in law and arguments relied on and a summary of those pleas in law. That information must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the General Court to rule on the application, if necessary without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on are indicated coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself (see order of 17 November 2020, González Calvet v SRB, T‑257/20, not published, EU:T:2020:541, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).

    339. The applicant claims that the contested decision is based on a prejudice which she describes as ‘obvious’ and which discriminates against her. However, she did not specify what that prejudice consisted of, or even on the basis of what criterion she considered herself to be a victim of discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter.

    340. Consequently, the plea of inadmissibility based on Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, raised by the ECB, is well founded and the part of this plea alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Charter must be rejected.

    341. As regards the alleged infringement of Articles 7, 9 and 33 of the Charter, the applicant submits that the ECB relied exclusively on her family ties to her husband in order to conclude that she did not satisfy the criterion relating to reputation. She adds, at the reply stage, that the ECB regarded her, on the basis of prejudice, as being totally dependent on her husband because she is a woman.

    ...

    344. The applicant has therefore not established that the contested decision entailed an infringement of Articles 7, 9 and 33 of the Charter.

    345. As regards the applicant’s arguments that the ECB infringed the presumption of innocence and her husband’s rights of defence, protected by Article 48 of the Charter, it should be recalled that the infringement of a subjective right may be invoked only by the person whose right has allegedly been infringed, and not by third parties (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 March 2023, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission, T‑540/20, EU:T:2023:91, paragraph 35 (not published) and the case-law cited).

    ...

    349. As regards the applicant’s arguments that the contested decision obliges the Warburg family to divest in the Target and prevents its transfer to the next generation, even though the Target has been in the family for a long time, which constitutes an infringement of Article 17 of the Charter, it should be noted that the right to property is a subjective right. The right invoked by the applicant in the present case is the right of her husband, who is not a party to the proceedings. Consequently, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 345 above, the applicant is not justified in pleading an infringement of Article 17 of the Charter.

    350. In any event, it should be noted that Article 17(1) of the Charter provides that everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions.

    351. It must also be borne in mind that the right to property guaranteed by Article 17(1) of the Charter is not absolute and that its exercise may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union (see judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB, C‑8/15 P to C‑10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited).

    352. Consequently, as is apparent from Article 52(1) of the Charter, restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of the right to property, provided that the restrictions genuinely meet objectives of general interest and do not constitute, in relation to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the right guaranteed (see judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB, C‑8/15 P to C‑10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    357. In the light of those factors, the applicant’s arguments alleging infringement of Article 17(1) of the Charter must be rejected.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)