What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

European UnionEUR-Lex

Court dismisses PNB Banka appeal against SRB no-resolution decision

The Court dismissed PNB Banka's appeal against the SRB's 2019 refusal to resolve it, confirming the SRB may decide not to adopt a scheme; the admitted breach of the right to be heard changed nothing.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 5 November 2026

Financial Sector & Markets Legal & Corporate

On 5 November 2026Europa the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed in its entirety the appeal by PNB Banka ASEuropa, a Latvian credit institution, in Case C-74/24 PEuropa against the General Court's judgment of 15 November 2023 (T-732/19)Europa. The General Court had dismissed the bank's action for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2019/131Europa of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 15 August 2019Europa, by which the SRB decided not to adopt a resolution scheme in respect of PNB BankaEuropa. The Court ordered PNB Banka to bear its own costs and to pay those of the SRB and the European Central Bank (ECB).

On 15 August 2019 the ECB assessed that PNB Banka was failing or was likely to fail within the meaning of point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014Europa, and on the same day the SRB decided that the conditions for a resolution scheme were not metEuropa, providing in its Article 1 that PNB Banka shall not be placed under resolutionEuropa. The Latvian resolution authority, the Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija, then sought insolvency proceedings; the Riga City Court (Vidzeme District) declared the bank insolvent on 12 September 2019Europa, and the ECB withdrew its authorisation with effect from 18 February 2020Europa. A resolution scheme requires three cumulative conditions to be met: the entity is failing or is likely to fail, no alternative private-sector or supervisory measure could prevent failure within a reasonable timeframe, and resolution action is necessary in the public interestEuropa.

The Court rejected the SRB's plea that the appeal was inadmissibleEuropa. The lawyer's authority had been issued by the bank's board of directors before the insolvency administrator was appointed and was not limited to the first-instance proceedings, so it covered the appealEuropa, and the administrator never called its validity into question. On competence, the Court recalled that EU acts are presumed lawful until withdrawn or annulled, so the General Court was entitled to rely on the ECB's 1 March 2019 classification of the bank as significant while the challenge to that classification was still pendingEuropa, and was not required to stay proceedings. The SRB has power to adopt a binding decision not to adopt a resolution scheme where the Article 18(1) conditions are not metEuropa, confirming the judgment in ABLV Bank v SRB (C-602/22 P); the statement in Commission v SRB (C-551/22 P) that the SRB cannot adopt acts with independent legal effects covers resolution schemes only.

On the right to be heard, the Court held that the General Court erred in lawEuropa. A decision not to adopt a resolution scheme adversely affects the bank, so Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights required that it be heard before adoptionEuropa. The exchanges the General Court relied on took place in ECB prudential supervision, which is distinct from the Article 18 procedure, and the bank was never heard in that procedureEuropa. The error was ineffective, howeverEuropa: annulment for breach of the right to be heard requires the applicant to show concretely that the procedure could have produced a different outcomeEuropa, which PNB Banka never argued before either courtEuropa. The first ground, alleging defective representation before the General Court, was rejected as inadmissible for want of the clarity and precision an appeal requires; the second ground, alleging a failure to state reasons, failed as ineffective in part and inadmissible in part.

Legal basis: Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Case C-74/24 P confirming ABLV Bank v SRB (C-602/22 P).

A bank challenging an SRB decision not to resolve it should plead any breach of the right to be heard with concrete evidence that a hearing could have changed the outcome.

Sources

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 5 November 2026 — Case C-74/24 P