{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-875-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-875-25-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-25","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:c82ec6","proof":"sha256:6187d0c0892c1dc69e054b76be5da660b560859d79a5038bb9f847cf55643ec4","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-875-25-p","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60"],"kind":"costs"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"24 June 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"( Appeal – Economic and monetary union – Banking union – Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 – Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"In Case C‑875/25 P,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 30 December 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by M. Fernandez, avocat, N. Hohler and J. Jansen, Rechtsanwälte,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"the other party to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Single Resolution Board (SRB),","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"defendant at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed),","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"composed of T. von Danwitz, Vice-President of the Court, J. Passer and B. Smulders (Rapporteur), Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"having regard to the proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, T. Ćapeta,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"makes the following","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Order","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"1         By its appeal, MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 October 2025, MeSoFa v SRB (T‑291/23, ‘the contested judgment’, EU:T:2025:962), by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of f …","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"The request that the appeal be allowed to proceed","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"2         Under the first paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of the SRB is not to proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so.","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"3         In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, an appeal is to be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"4         Under Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure, in the situations referred to in the first paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, the appellant is to annex to the appeal a request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, setting out the issue raised by the appeal that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law and containing all the information necessary to enable the Court to rule on that request.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"5         In accordance with Article 170b(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is to rule as soon as possible on the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, in the form of a reasoned order.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Arguments of the appellant","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"6         In support of its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant submits that the six grounds relied on in its appeal each raise an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"7         In the first place, the appellant submits that, in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the contested judgment, the General Court erred in law by replacing the first decision of the Appeal Panel by its second decision, thereby infringing the appellant’s rights of defence and exceeding its powers, as it …","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"8         Second, the appellant submits that the General Court exceeded its powers by holding that the first decision of the Appeal Panel was replaced by the second decision of the Appeal Panel, when, according to the appellant, that panel had not ruled on that matter. In that regard, the appellant …","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"9         In the second place, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 35 to 60 of the contested judgment, by not properly examining the pleas of illegality which it had raised on the basis of Article 277 TFEU. It submits that since those pleas of illegality were not …","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"10       In the third place, the appellant criticises the General Court for having, in paragraphs 61 to 68 of the contested judgment, circumvented the issue of the period of time which elapsed after the case had been referred back to the SRB by the Appeal Panel. It thus failed to take account of the …","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"11       In the fourth place, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 115 to 128 of the contested judgment, in its assessment of the ‘policy exception’ provided for in the fourth indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001. It submits that, since the Appeal P …","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"12       In the fifth place, the appellant maintains that the General Court, in paragraphs 142 to 149 of the contested judgment, erred in law by refusing to recognise the existence of an overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of the information requested. It criticises the General Cour …","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"13       In the sixth place, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law by failing to examine of its own motion the existence of parallel proceedings directed against the second confirmatory decision, brought simultaneously by the appellant before the Appeal Panel and before the Gen …","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"14       Consequently, the appellant complains that the General Court did not annul of its own motion the second decision of the Appeal Panel, even though that panel had exceeded its powers. The same is true of the SRB, in view of remedies being incorrectly suggested in the second confirmatory decis …","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"15       In that regard, the appellant submits that that issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, in that that ground is an example of a breach of the principle of legal certainty and the right to an effective judicial remedy, as established in Article 4 …","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"16       As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that it is for the appellant to demonstrate that the issues raised by its appeal are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann , C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 20, and of 18 November 2025, EUIPO v Versiontech , C‑411/25 P, EU:C:2025:943, paragraph 20).","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"17       Furthermore, as is apparent from the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, read together with Article 170a(1) and Article 170b(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must contain all the informati …","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"18       Accordingly, a request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must, in any event, set out clearly and in detail the grounds on which the appeal is based, identify with equal clarity and detail the issue of law raised by each ground of appeal, specify whether that issue is significant with res …","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"19       A request that an appeal be allowed to proceed which does not contain the information mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the present order cannot be capable of demonstrating that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU …","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"20       In the present case, as regards, first, the arguments summarised in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the present order, it is true that the appellant states that those errors of law consist in the General Court having, in essence, exceeded its judicial powers to the detriment of those of the Appeal Pa …","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"21       By simply maintaining that the division of powers is a significant issue of a constitutional nature, that effective legal and judicial protection is cross-cutting in nature in the EU legal order, and that the judicial powers of the General Court to rule that a quasi-judicial decision has be …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"22       As regards, second, the line of argument summarised in paragraph 9 of the present order, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the determination as to whether an appeal may proceed depends not on whether an issue of la …","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"23       Third, as for the line of argument summarised in paragraph 10 of the present order, contrary to what the appellant claims, the application of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union does not depend on the fact that a legal issue has been assessed by a board …","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"24       Fourth, as regards the arguments summarised in paragraph 11 of the present order, it should be noted, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 18 of the present order, that the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must indicate to what extent the error of law allegedly c …","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"25       Fifth, as regards the line of argument summarised in paragraph 12 of the present order, including the reference to other previous decisions of the Appeal Panel, clearly made by the appellant in order to strengthen the argument based on the first decision of the Appeal Panel, it relates to t …","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"26       Sixth and last, as regards the arguments summarised in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the present order, the appellant does not establish, contrary to the requirements recalled in paragraph 18 of the present order, how the findings made by the General Court in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the contested judgment should have led it to examine of its own motion the issue of actions conducted in parallel.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"27       Therefore, the sixth ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court failed to examine of its own motion whether a ‘parallel review’ of the second confirmatory decision was conducted by the General Court itself and by the Appeal Panel does not satisfy the requirement of precision necessary to justify the appeal being allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"28       In those circumstances, the request submitted by the appellant is not such as to establish that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"29       In the light of the foregoing considerations, the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"30       Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to proceedings on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"31       Since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other party to the proceedings and, therefore, before that party could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant is to bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"1.       The appeal is not allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"2.       MeSoFa Vermögensverwaltungs AG shall bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"Luxembourg, 24 June 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"T. von Danwitz","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Registrar","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: English.","paragraph_id":"para_60"}],"word_count":4539,"cites":["C-875/25","T-291/23","C-588/21","C-382/21","C-411/25","C-613/19","C-598/25","C-533/23","C-431/22"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"6cc854b3f4e6bf28a1146381d4fb469e4dce92f6512e2c1892aaeae2b61dd7e3","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CO0875","fetched_at":"2026-09-30T04:28:36.631+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-875-25-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-875-25-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-875-25-p","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-875-25-p"},"hash":"sha256:6187d0c0892c1dc69e054b76be5da660b560859d79a5038bb9f847cf55643ec4","version":"legal-2026-10-25","expires":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-25+legal-2026-10-25+2026-10-25T13:37:31","content_hash":"sha256:6187d0c0892c1dc69e054b76be5da660b560859d79a5038bb9f847cf55643ec4","revalidate_after":"2026-10-26T06:29:33.251Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-875-25-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-875-25-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-875-25-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-875-25-p"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-875-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-896eaec83c57fe6b9f24f7c4ace08b09","response_hash":"sha256:6187d0c0892c1dc69e054b76be5da660b560859d79a5038bb9f847cf55643ec4"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T04:59:50.934Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-875-25-p&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":5549}}