Scholarlink

On 12 October 2022, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) rendered its judgment in Case T-502/19 on an action under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) seeking the annulment of European Central Bank (‘ECB’) decisions placing Banca Carige SpA (‘Carige’) under temporary administration and extending it subsequently over time. The case, now under appeal, raises several issues on different topics: from locus standi to judicial review and to the scope and application of Article 4(3) of the SSM Regulation. We analyse how the General Court has addressed each of such topics and how they dialogue with previous rulings by EU Courts on similar matters. We conclude that despite the innovative answers provided by the judgment, fundamental questions concerning the interpretation and application of national law by EU Institutions and Courts are far from settled or consolidated. In this sense, while the Corneli case may stand as an important precedent in the rich and evolving landscape of jurisprudence developed by EU Courts, many challenges still lie ahead.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Corneli Case and the Application of National Law by the European Central Bank Developments on Article 4(3) SSMR in Case T-502/19 (Francesca Corneli V ECB)

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Filippo Annunziata,
  • Thomaz de Arruda

摘要

On 12 October 2022, the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) rendered its judgment in Case T-502/19 on an action under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) seeking the annulment of European Central Bank (‘ECB’) decisions placing Banca Carige SpA (‘Carige’) under temporary administration and extending it subsequently over time. The case, now under appeal, raises several issues on different topics: from locus standi to judicial review and to the scope and application of Article 4(3) of the SSM Regulation. We analyse how the General Court has addressed each of such topics and how they dialogue with previous rulings by EU Courts on similar matters. We conclude that despite the innovative answers provided by the judgment, fundamental questions concerning the interpretation and application of national law by EU Institutions and Courts are far from settled or consolidated. In this sense, while the Corneli case may stand as an important precedent in the rich and evolving landscape of jurisprudence developed by EU Courts, many challenges still lie ahead.