The restructuring of Idea Bank is a hard nut even for the Supreme Administrative Court. The court translates the judgment

Due to the complexity and importance of the case, the Supreme Administrative Court translated by June 9 an announcement of a judgment in a case regarding forced restructuring of Idea Bank. Originally, the judgment regarding the decision of the bank guarantee fund of December 2020 was to be taken on Tuesday.

The case considered before the Supreme Administrative Court belongs to one of the most extensive recently. 48 cassation complaints lodged by 434 entities from the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw made on August 25, 2021, then dismissed 606 complaints lodged against the decision of the Bank Guarantee Fund of December 30, 2020.

The loud BFG decision at the end concerned the forced restructuring of Idea Bank. “The Bank Guarantee Fund, due to the very bad capital situation of Idea Bank SA, initiated its compulsory restructuring. The bank will be taken over on January 3, 2021 by Bank Pekao SA, one of the largest banks in Poland” – it was reported.

As the then president of BFG, Piotr Tomaszewski said, “looking for other than economic and financial contexts of the decision on forced restructuring of Idea Bank is unjustified.” As the “Capital Situation of Idea Bank was very bad, and according to the estimation prepared by the independent, reputable company PwC Advisory, the bank had negative capitals at the level minus PLN 482.8 million, which means that assets were not enough to cover obligations.” The head of Idea Bank Leszek Czarnecki at that time commented in “Gazeta Wyborcza” that behind the BFG decision, which was made during the PiS rule, “there is nationalization lined with retaliation.”

“The initiation of forced restructuring of Idea Bank is one of the many decisions of state bodies in connection with the GetBack scandal. The circle of victims covers over 9,000 people, and the case arouses great social interest” – in turn, the Ombudsman Marcin Wiącek pointed out the attention of this case and joined the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court.

In the summer of 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court dismissed the decision to initiate forced restructuring and decided that this decision was not issued in violation of the law.

“In the opinion of the Court of first instance, the contested BFG decision corresponded to the law, achieving the objectives of the restructuring proceedings, and the statutory premises for its undertaking were met. The first instance court did not share the allegations regarding + double + role of BFG in relation to the bank, i.e. actions taken by BFG as a law that applies the right to a decision on forced restructuring and as Curator of a restructured bank ” – reported in a recent NSA announcement.

Cassation complaints were submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court from this judgment. They raised, among others Allegations of invalidity of proceedings due to an improperly manned court and improper justification of the judgment of the court of first instance. “There were also allegations regarding the course of the proceedings regarding the appointment of an appraiser, preparation of estimates, remuneration for an appraiser, choosing a acquiring entity, BFG joining various functions in relation to a restructured bank” – reported the Supreme Administrative Court.

The hearing regarding this cassation complaint took place on May 21. As reported by the Supreme Administrative Court, several dozen proxies representing the applicants cassationally, including the supervisory board of the restructured bank, the owner of the bank, trustee, as well as the applicants before the court of first instance. “The proxies of the Bank Guarantee Fund and the Plenipotentiary of the Ombudsman, who joined the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, also appeared,” said the Supreme Administrative Court.

At that time, the trial lasted several hours, and the majority of it took place at the closed door due to the possibility of disclosure in the speeches of proxies of classified information, including e.g. banking secrecy.

The Representative of the ROP claimed that the Supreme Administrative Court would set aside the Provincial Administrative Court judgment on restructuring and examined complaints about the BFG decision. “Persons injured by GetBack SA activities have the right to examine the case of forced restructuring of Idea Bank SA” – emphasized the RPO office.

As Wiącek pointed out in a letter to the Supreme Administrative Court “by BFG, the decision to initiate forced restructuring shaped the legal situation of GetBack bondholders, who acquired bonds through Idea Bank, actually depriving them of the possibility of pursuing any claims for the purchase of bonds.”

In response to cassation complaints, BFG requested that the complaint of the Supervisory Board of the Restructured Bank and rejection of cassation complaints of other parties.

Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court Małgorzata Korycińska after the hearing postponed the announcement of the sentence by June 3. On Tuesday, however, she informed a dozen or so gathered proxies that due to its extensiveness, complication and importance of the case, the publication of the judgment will take place on Monday, June 9 at 9.

Pursuant to the law on proceedings before administrative courts, “the announcement of the judgment should take place at a meeting where the trial was closed.” “However, in a complicated case, the court may postpone the announcement of the judgment for a time to fourteen days. In the decision on postponement, the court should set a deadline for the judgment and announce it immediately after closing the hearing” – constitutes the provision. At the same time, it also added that “this term can only be extended once and at most seven days.”

The matter may also be influenced by the decision of the EU Court of Justice in the Getin Noble Bank – another former Bank Czarnecki. In December last year, the CJEU ruled, the National Court should not only examine the complaint of the bank's supervisory board on its compulsory restructuring, but also over 8,000. other complaints, including by Frankowicz.

Then – in January this year. – The Provincial Administrative Court ruled that the BFG decision on forced restructuring of Getin Noble Bank was issued in violation of law, in conditions that do not provide impartial requirements. Theoretically, such a ruling, in the event of validation, may open the way to compensation claims. BFG informed then that after receiving a written justification of the judgment, he would start work on lodging a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Marcin Jabłoński (PAP)

MJA/ MICK/