Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court overturned a lower court’s decision regarding the legality of the forced restructuring of Getin Noble Bank, leaving creditor claims unresolved.
Legal Challenge to Getin Noble Bank Restructuring Continues
The Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) ruling on March 26, 2026, does not determine the legality of the forced restructuring of Getin Noble Bank S.A. The case returns to the Administrative Court in Warsaw (WSA), meaning the possibility of compensation claims for creditors remains open.
NSA Finds Lower Court Reasoning Insufficient
The NSA determined that the WSA’s justification for its ruling was inadequate and has sent the case back for reconsideration. The court did not issue a substantive decision on the matter. The written justification of the NSA ruling will be crucial.
Potential for State Compensation Remains
Cezary Korolczuk, an attorney at Konieczny Polak i Partnerzy, explains that the NSA’s decision to overturn the WSA ruling and return the case for review does not yet confirm the illegality – or legality – of the BFG’s decision.
Procedural Reset for Creditor Claims
The attorney clarifies that the proceedings effectively “revert” to the lower instance. The WSA’s initial ruling lacked sufficient justification for its claim that the decision was issued in violation of the law.
Uncertainty for Creditors Regarding Compensation
This situation creates a transitional state for creditors, meaning there is currently no basis for filing compensation claims under Article 417 of the Civil Code. However, the possibility of pursuing such claims remains if the WSA ultimately finds the decision to be unlawful.
Further Delays Expected in Final Resolution
If the WSA in Warsaw again finds that the forced restructuring was unlawful, and provides more comprehensive justification, the BFG will likely appeal, leading to further delays in a final resolution.
Impact on Thousands of Pending Complaints
If the WSA upholds the legality of the restructuring, the question arises as to the fate of the remaining thousands of complaints, according to attorney Cezary Korolczuk.
TSUE Ruling Highlights Right to Judicial Review
According to the reasoning in the Court of Justice of the European Union (TSUE) case C-118/23, dismissing only one complaint as unfounded does not guarantee the right to a court for every other person affected by the decision who has also filed a complaint raising different objections. The remaining thousands of complaints must also be considered, though a consistent outcome is likely.
Uniform Resolution of Complaints Anticipated
While each of the approximately seven thousand complaints formally requires individual consideration, a relatively quick resolution based on a uniform scheme is expected, stemming from the final ruling in the case brought by the Getin Noble Bank S.A. supervisory board.
Background of the Getin Noble Bank Restructuring
The case before the NSA concerns one of the most significant supervisory decisions in recent years: the forced restructuring of the bank carried out by the Bank Guarantee Fund (BFG) in 2022.
Asset Transfer and Bank Failure
The restructuring involved transferring the “healthy” part of the bank – income-generating assets – to a new company (VeloBank). The remaining portion, including mortgage loans, remained with GNB, which declared bankruptcy in 2023.
Core Dispute: Legality and Procedural Fairness
The dispute centers on whether the BFG’s decision was issued lawfully, particularly with regard to maintaining standards of impartiality and appropriate procedural guarantees.
WSA’s Initial Ruling Challenged BFG’s Actions
In its initial ruling, the WSA in Warsaw found that the restructuring decision was issued in violation of the law. The court primarily questioned the BFG’s operational model, pointing to a conflict of interest arising from the fund simultaneously preparing and making the decision while also fulfilling other roles within the financial security system.
Concerns Over Impartiality and Procedural Flaws
The WSA believed this could violate the requirement for impartiality. However, the court did not remove the decision from legal circulation, merely stating its flaws.
