# C_2014151EN.01000901.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/9

---

Appeal brought on 7 February 2014 by Sven A. von Storch and Others against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 December 2013 in Case T-492/12 Sven A. von Storch and Others v European Central Bank

(Case C-64/14 P)

2014/C 151/11

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Sven A. von Storch and Others (represented by: M. C. Kerber, Rechtsanwalt, and B. von Storch, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the order of the First Chamber of the General Court of 10 December 2013 in Case T-492/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the First Chamber of the General Court of 10 December 2013 in Case T-492/12;

| — | Grant the form of order sought by the applicants in the application of 11 November 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the form of order sought by the applicants in the application of 11 November 2012;

| — | Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in accordance with Article 122(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in accordance with Article 122(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the order of the First Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 10 December 2013 in Case T-492/12 is vitiated by an error of law for the following reasons:

| 1. | Since the wording of the decisions of the ECB of 6 September 2012 on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s Outright Monetary Transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets and on additional measures to preserve collateral availability for counterparties in order to maintain their access to the Eurosystem’s liquidity-providing operators, and






  — | in the alternative, the wording of Guideline 2012/641/EU of the ECB of 10 October 2012 amending Guideline ECB/2012/18 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2012/23) (1) entail legal effects, the decisions may be the subject-matter of an action. According to settled case-law with regard to Article 19 TEU, the binding nature of an act is determined with reference to its purpose. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Since the wording of the decisions of the ECB of 6 September 2012 on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s Outright Monetary Transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets and on additional measures to preserve collateral availability for counterparties in order to maintain their access to the Eurosystem’s liquidity-providing operators, and

—

in the alternative, the wording of Guideline 2012/641/EU of the ECB of 10 October 2012 amending Guideline ECB/2012/18 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2012/23) (1) entail legal effects, the decisions may be the subject-matter of an action. According to settled case-law with regard to Article 19 TEU, the binding nature of an act is determined with reference to its purpose.

1

| 2. | The applicants were directly and individually concerned by the contested decisions, even though those decisions are not directly addressed to them. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants were directly and individually concerned by the contested decisions, even though those decisions are not directly addressed to them.

| 3. | The order of 10 December 2013 is vitiated by an error of law because the General Court adopted the ECB’s argument that the decisions had no effect on the legal position of citizens. At the same time, the General Court ignored the fact that the decisions actually have wide-ranging consequences for the securities markets and particularly the issue of government bonds and were equally intended by the ECB. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The order of 10 December 2013 is vitiated by an error of law because the General Court adopted the ECB’s argument that the decisions had no effect on the legal position of citizens. At the same time, the General Court ignored the fact that the decisions actually have wide-ranging consequences for the securities markets and particularly the issue of government bonds and were equally intended by the ECB.

| 4. | The order of 10 December 2013 is vitiated by an error of law because the General Court made the applicants’ right of action dependent on an actual action of the ECB or on subsequent, more concrete transactions, action which in the specific case is likely to fall outside the knowledge of the applicants, not to mention the actual impossibility of any reversal of securities purchases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The order of 10 December 2013 is vitiated by an error of law because the General Court made the applicants’ right of action dependent on an actual action of the ECB or on subsequent, more concrete transactions, action which in the specific case is likely to fall outside the knowledge of the applicants, not to mention the actual impossibility of any reversal of securities purchases.

| 5. | The order of 10 December 2013 is vitiated by an error of law because the General Court deprived the applicants of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950. In particular, the possibility referred to by the General Court of an indirect challenge by means of Article 277 TFEU under no circumstances has the same legal effect as an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The order of 10 December 2013 is vitiated by an error of law because the General Court deprived the applicants of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950. In particular, the possibility referred to by the General Court of an indirect challenge by means of Article 277 TFEU under no circumstances has the same legal effect as an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 284, p. 14.

1

---