Key dates
- 24 June 2013
- – Earlier ESA Board of Appeal case law clarifies that appeals are reserved for “decisions” that produce binding legal effects and that the Board lacks jurisdiction over acts that are not such decisions, including certain complaints‑handling outcomes
- 21 July 2022
- – In Decision BoA‑D‑2022‑01 (appeal “C” v EBA), the Board of Appeal holds that an appeal against EBA’s decision not to initiate an investigation into alleged non‑application of EU law in relation to payment accounts is inadmissible under Article 60(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010
- 16 July 2026
- – The ESAs’ Joint Board of Appeal issues the present decision dismissing, as inadmissible, an individual’s appeal against EBA’s decision not to open an investigation into a possible breach of Union law by the Finnish FIN‑FSA in relation to a bank account closure
Suggested considerations
- Review internal complaints‑handling and escalation procedures to ensure that disputes over account closures and related supervisory decisions are managed through national complaint bodies and courts, rather than assuming EBA or Board of Appeal review will be available.
- Update legal and compliance guidance notes to reflect that EBA’s decision whether to initiate a breach‑of‑Union‑law investigation is discretionary and generally not subject to appeal before the Board of Appeal, limiting external escalation avenues.
- Train front‑office, customer‑service and complaints staff to provide accurate information to customers about available redress routes, emphasising national ombudsman, national competent authority and judicial mechanisms rather than ESMA/EBA appeals.
- For groups operating across the EU, map national complaint and judicial mechanisms for account closures in each jurisdiction and integrate them into group‑wide conduct risk frameworks and customer communication templates.
- Monitor further ESA and EU court case law on which ESA acts are susceptible to appeal before the Board of Appeal, and adjust litigation and escalation strategies accordingly.
What changed
- - The decision clarifies that EBA’s decision whether or not to initiate an investigation into a possible breach or non‑application of Union law under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is a...
- The Board of Appeal confirms that a decision not to open a Union law breach investigation does not constitute a reviewable “decision” for the purposes of Article 60(1)–(2) of the ESA Regulations and...
- The Board of Appeal confirms that individual complaints about account closures and associated supervisory handling remain primarily within the remit of national competent authorities and national...
- The decision reiterates that only certain categories of ESA acts that produce binding legal effects (for example, decisions adopted under Articles 17, 18 or 19 of the ESA Regulations, and acts within...
- The outcome aligns with prior Board of Appeal and EU court case law confirming that persons outside the specific categories listed in Article 17(2) of the ESA Regulations have no right of appeal to...
Compliance impact
Non‑compliance with national rules on account closures and customer treatment can lead to supervisory sanctions, civil liability and reputational damage, and firms should not rely on ESA‑level appeals as a corrective mechanism. The inability to challenge EBA’s non‑investigation decisions heightens the importance of robust conduct, documentation and national‑level redress management.