# C_2015302EN.01006401.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/64

---

Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Alcimos Consulting v ECB

(Case T-368/15)

(2015/C 302/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alcimos Consulting SMPC (Athens, Greece) (represented by: F. Rodolaki, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare its application initiating proceedings admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare its application initiating proceedings admissible;

| — | declare the decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank on 28 June 2015 and 6 July 2015 void, and alternatively annul them, and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank on 28 June 2015 and 6 July 2015 void, and alternatively annul them, and

| — | award to the applicant damages amounting to one euro. |
| --- | --- |

—

award to the applicant damages amounting to one euro.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) acted in violation of Article 14(4) of the satute of the European System of Centrals Banks (‘ESCB’), as the ECB’s refusal to the request made by the Bank of Greece to increase the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (‘ELA’) to Greek banks would not have interfered with the objectives and tasks of the ESCB. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) acted in violation of Article 14(4) of the satute of the European System of Centrals Banks (‘ESCB’), as the ECB’s refusal to the request made by the Bank of Greece to increase the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (‘ELA’) to Greek banks would not have interfered with the objectives and tasks of the ESCB.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) acted in violation of Articles 4 and 5 TEU, as it was acting ultra vires when rejecting the request by the Bank of Greece. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) acted in violation of Articles 4 and 5 TEU, as it was acting ultra vires when rejecting the request by the Bank of Greece.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB acted taking into account political considerations and therefore violating Article 130 TFEU, which enshrines the independence of the ECB. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB acted taking into account political considerations and therefore violating Article 130 TFEU, which enshrines the independence of the ECB.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested ECB decisions do not meet the proportionality test, since the promotion of the smooth operation of payment systems provided for in Article 127 (2) TFEU is one of the four basic tasks to be carried out through the Eurosystem, while the extension of additional ELA to Greek banks with its potential minute effects on the implementation of the single monetary policy would have been less disruptive t the objectives of the ECB. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested ECB decisions do not meet the proportionality test, since the promotion of the smooth operation of payment systems provided for in Article 127 (2) TFEU is one of the four basic tasks to be carried out through the Eurosystem, while the extension of additional ELA to Greek banks with its potential minute effects on the implementation of the single monetary policy would have been less disruptive t the objectives of the ECB.

---