Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2022:96
Date: 2022-02-22
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber, Extended Composition
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Cyprus;United Kingdom;Luxembourg;Malta

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition) 26 February 2021 (*) (Non-contractual liability – Economic and monetary policy – Stability support programme for Cyprus – Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism – Replacement of a party to the proceedings) In Case T‑161/15, Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex, (1) represented by R. Nowinski, lawyer, applicants, v European Commission, represented by J.‑P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents, and European Central Bank (ECB), represented by K. Laurinavičius, and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, and H.‑G. Kamann, lawyer, defendants, APPLICATION on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Kanninen (Rapporteur), President, M. Jaeger, N. Półtorak, O. Porchia and M. Stancu, Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, makes the following Order Facts and procedure 1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 1 April 2015, Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd, Megamatic Management Ltd and the other parties whose names appear in the annex brought an action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism. 2 By separate document, lodged at the Court Registry on 15 October 2015, the Commission raised a plea of inadmissibility under Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. 3 On 29 October 2015, the European Central Bank (ECB) lodged its defence at the Court Registry. 4 On 2 December 2015, the applicants submitted observations on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission. 5 On 26 January 2016, the applicants lodged their reply at the Court Registry. 6 By order of 17 February 2016, the General Court (First Chamber) decided to reserve the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission for the final judgment, in accordance with Article 130(7) of the Rules of Procedure. 7 On 23 March 2016, the Commission lodged its defence at the Court Registry. 8 On 30 March 2016, the ECB lodged its rejoinder at the Court Registry. 9 On 18 April 2016, pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the First Chamber of the Court decided to stay the present proceedings pending the adoption of the final decision in Cases C‑8/15 P, Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB; C‑9/15 P, Eleftheriou and Others v Commission and ECB; C‑10/15 P, Theophilou and Theophilou v Commission and ECB; C‑105/15 P, Mallis and Malli v Commission and ECB; C‑106/15 P, Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and ECB; C‑107/15 P, Chatzithoma v Commission and ECB; C‑108/15 P, Chatziioannou v Commission and ECB; and C‑109/15 P, Nikolaou v Commission and ECB. 10 Following the judgments of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB (C‑8/15 P to C‑10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701), and Mallis and Others v Commission and ECB (C‑105/15 P to C‑109/15 P, EU:C:2016:702), by which the Court of Justice disposed of the proceedings referred to in the preceding paragraph, the present proceedings were resumed. 11 Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the General Court by decision of 26 September 2016, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the Fourth Chamber, to which the present case was accordingly allocated. 12 On 12 December 2016, Megamatic Management’s board of directors approved the voluntary liquidation of Megamatic Management. 13 On 22 March 2017, Megamatic Management and Fletcher Group Holdings concluded an assignment agreement, under which the latter was to acquire ‘all of the claims and rights’ of the former ‘against the Commission, the ECB and the European Union arising from and connected with losses sustained in March 2013 when Cyprus Popular Bank was placed in [bank failure] resolution’. That contract stated that that ‘claim [was] part of the action before the European Court of Justice in Case T‑161/15’. 14 On 17 May 2017, on a proposal from the Fourth Chamber, the Court decided, pursuant to Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, to assign the present case to a chamber sitting in extended composition. 15 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 27 July 2017, Fletcher Group Holdings applied to replace Megamatic Management as an applicant in the present case. 16 The Court invited the principal parties to express their views on that application. By document lodged at the Court Registry on 20 November 2017, the Commission stated that it had no objections to the replacement requested, but pointed out that any replacement should be conditional on Fletcher Group Holdings accepting the dispute as it found it at the time of the replacement. By document lodged at the Court Registry on 24 November 2017, the ECB agreed to that replacement on condition that Fletcher Group Holdings accepted the dispute as it found it at the time of the replacement. 17 On 30 November 2017, pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court decided to stay the present proceedings pending the adoption of the decision closing the proceedings in Cases T‑680/13, Chrysostomides Co. and Others v Council and Others, and T‑786/14, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others. 18 Following the judgments of 13 July 2018, Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (T‑680/13, EU:T:2018:486), and Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T‑786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487), by which the General Court disposed of the proceedings referred to in the preceding paragraph, the present proceedings were resumed. 19 On 19 November 2018, pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court decided to stay the present proceedings pending the adoption of the decision closing the proceedings in Cases C‑597/18 P, Council v Chrysostomides Co. and Others; C‑598/18 P, Council v Bourdouvali and Others; C‑603/18 P, Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others; and C‑604/18 P, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others. 20 Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the General Court by decision of 4 October 2019, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the First Chamber. The present case was therefore assigned to the First Chamber, Extended Composition. 21 Following the judgment of 16 December 2020, Council v K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others (C‑597/18 P, C‑598/18 P, C‑603/18 P and C‑604/18 P, EU:C:2020:1028), by which the Court of Justice disposed of the proceedings in the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, the present proceedings were resumed. Law 22 It must be noted, first of all, that neither the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor the Rules of Procedure of the General Court contain provisions explicitly governing the replacement of one party by another, with the exception of cases involving intellectual property. 23 However, in accordance with settled case-law, an action for annulment brought by a legal person may be continued by the universal successor in title to that addressee, in particular in the case where a legal person ceases to exist and all its rights and obligations are transferred to another person. In such a situation, the universal successor in title necessarily automatically replaces its predecessor (see order of 30 November 2018, FMC v Commission, T‑719/17, not published, EU:T:2018:893, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited). 24 That case-law is also applicable to actions for damages. 25 In the present case, Megamatic Management ceased to exist following voluntary liquidation proceedings that formed part of a restructuring of the group of companies to which it belonged. In the context of that dissolution, Megamatic Management transferred to Fletcher Group Holdings, of which it was the majority shareholder, the rights which are the subject of the present proceedings. Accordingly, that transfer may be treated, for the purposes of the present proceedings, as a universal transfer (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 30 November 2018, FMC v Commission, T‑719/17, not published, EU:T:2018:893, paragraph 12). 26 In addition, since the replacement requested may adversely affect the legitimate interests of the other parties to the proceedings, they must also be heard. As stated in paragraph 16 above, the ECB expressly consented to the replacement on condition that Fletcher Group Holdings accept the dispute as it finds it at the time of the replacement, while the Commission did not raise any objections, while also pointing out that Fletcher Group Holdings would, in the event of replacement, have to accept the dispute as it found it at the time of replacement. 27 In that regard, it should be noted that, by analogy with Article 176(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the new applicant must accept the case as it finds it at the time of the replacement and is, in particular, bound by any procedural steps taken by the former applicant (see, also, order of 18 December 2019, Novartis Europharm v Commission, T‑303/16, not published, EU:T:2019:908). 28 In those circumstances, it is appropriate to authorise Fletcher Group Holdings to take the place of Megamatic Management as an applicant in the present case. Consequently, Fletcher Group Holdings becomes one of the applicants in the present proceedings. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby orders: 1. Fletcher Group Holdings Ltd is authorised to replace Megamatic Management Ltd as an applicant. 2. The costs are reserved. Luxembourg, 26 February 2021. E. Coulon H. Kanninen Registrar President * Language of the case: English. 1 The list of the other applicants is annexed only to the version sent to the parties.