Supreme Administrative Court Judgment in the Getin Noble Bank Case Consequences for CHF Borrowers and Possibilities for Seeking Damages

The Supreme Administrative Court Did Not Determine the Legality of the Resolution Process

The judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) of 26 March 2026 did not determine whether the decision concerning the compulsory restructuring of Getin Noble Bank (GNB) was lawful. The NSA set aside the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court (WSA) and remitted the case for reconsideration. This means that the court neither confirmed nor denied the legality of the actions taken by the Bank Guarantee Fund (BFG).

The WSA will have to reassess whether the BFG ensured sufficient operational independence and avoided conflicts of interest arising from the combination of its functions as deposit guarantor, bank supervisor/administrator, and resolution authority. It was precisely the lack of an effective separation of these roles that constituted the main basis for the earlier WSA judgment finding a breach of law.

The Collapse of Getin Noble Bank Remains Irreversible

Most importantly, even if the decision of the BFG is ultimately found to have been unlawful, such a finding will not reverse the effects of the restructuring process or the bank’s insolvency. The consequences of the insolvency of GNB will not be undone, nor will the legal status of the bankruptcy trustee or the ongoing insolvency proceedings change.

In this context, CHF borrowers may still seek declarations that their loan agreements are null and void before the civil courts. The effectiveness of such claims is not dependent on the administrative proceedings concerning the restructuring process, and judgments issued in this respect may lead to the determination of claims against the bankruptcy estate or constitute a basis for further claims against the State Treasury.

What the NSA Judgment Means for CHF Borrowers

From the perspective of CHF borrowers, the NSA judgment does not materially change their current procedural position. In civil proceedings concerning the invalidity of loan agreements, the bank continues to be represented by the bankruptcy trustee.

As the manner in which the bank is represented remains unchanged, the trustee continues to conduct the proceedings already initiated, and such proceedings should continue without suspension until the matter is finally resolved.

Individuals who have not yet filed a claim may still, and indeed should, bring an action seeking a declaration that their loan agreement is null and void. In addition, they may apply for interim relief in the form of a suspension of loan repayments.

What CHF Borrowers May Realistically Gain

The most significant development for CHF borrowers would be a scenario in which the administrative court ultimately finds that the decision on the compulsory restructuring was issued in breach of the law.

Such a judgment would not reverse the effects of GNB’s insolvency, but it could create grounds for seeking damages from the State Treasury for the loss of a real opportunity to recover funds due under invalid loan agreements. This would be particularly relevant for individuals who, before the restructuring process, had already obtained final judgments, were at an advanced stage of proceedings, or had a realistic possibility of successfully enforcing their claims.

Potential liability of the State Treasury for damages could therefore arise in situations where the restructuring process and subsequent insolvency effectively deprived borrowers of the possibility of recovering funds from the bank.

Accordingly, we must await the final rulings of the administrative courts.

Authors: 

Attorney-at-Law Leszek Paterek

Legal Assistant Julia Sośniak