Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2024:362
Date: 2024-06-05
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: European Central Bank (ECB);Provisions governing the Institutions;Economic and monetary policy
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for damages - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the documents submitted by the applicant. Such information is essential to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the arguments raised (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2015, Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción v Commission, T‑250/12, EU:T:2015:749, paragraph 101 and the case-law cited). 202 The second complaint must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. – The third complaint, concerning the assurances given by the ECB as to the soundness of the bank 203 By the third complaint, the applicants claim that the ECB breached, in a sufficiently serious manner, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by giving the bank’s shareholders assurances as to the bank’s soundness that would have led them to make significant investments. 204 In that regard, it should be noted that the applicants have not provided any evidence in support of their claim that would make it possible to identify the assurances given by the ECB as to the bank’s financial soundness, or the circumstances in which those assurances were given. 205 In accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 201 above, it is necessary, in order for a complaint to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the documents submitted by the applicant. 206 In those circumstances, the third complaint must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. 207 Since all the complaints have been rejected, the line of argument concerning the seventh instance of unlawful conduct must be rejected in its entirety. The eighth instance of unlawful conduct, in that the ECB breached, in a sufficiently serious manner, the shareholders’ right to property by causing, by its acts and omissions, a significant reduction in the value of their shareholdings in the bank 208 As regards the eighth instance of unlawful conduct alleged against the ECB, the applicants claim that it breached their right to property by causing, by its acts and omissions, a significant reduction in the value of their shareholdings in the bank. 209 The ECB, supported by the Commission, disputes that line of argument. 210 In that connection, it should be recalled that, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Charter, everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest. 211 The case-law considers that the right to property, as laid down in Article 17(1) of the Charter, constitutes a rule of law conferring rights on individuals (see, to that effect, 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, paragraph 66, and of 23 May 2019, Steinhoff and Others v ECB, T‑107/17, EU:T:2019:353, paragraph 96). 212 Thus, it is necessary to examine whether the applicants’ right to property was gravely and manifestly breached by the ECB. 213 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law cited in paragraph 201 above, in order for an action to be admissible it is necessary that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the written pleadings submitted by the applicants. 214 In the present case, the applicants have stated that the value of their shareholdings had fallen and attributed that development to the decisions adopted by the bank following the measures taken by the ECB, without, however, establishing that those measures had caused that result and without having submitted an analysis to show that that result had not been caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by other facts or other circumstances. 215 In those circumstances, the argument concerning the eighth instance of unlawful conduct alleged against the ECB must be rejected as inadmissible. 216 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that none of the unlawful conduct alleged against the ECB relied on by the applicants is capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. 217 On that ground, the action must be dismissed without it being necessary either to assess whether the other conditions compliance with which is required by the case-law in order for an EU institution to incur liability, namely the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct alleged and the damage pleaded, or to rule on the measures of inquiry requested by the applicants. Costs 218 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 219 Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the ECB and the Commission. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Malacalza Investimenti Srl and Mr Vittorio Malacalza to pay the costs. Porchia Jaeger Madise Nihoul Verschuur Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 5 June 2024. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Italian.