Case C-603/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others
Date: 2018-09-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cyprus, bank, central bank, economic stabilisation, equal treatment, financial aid, ownership, principle of proportionality, shareholder, stability programme








C_2018427EN.01002701.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/27






Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others
(Case C-603/18 P)
(2018/C 427/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


quash the decision of the General Court;










—


grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;










—


order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by:






(a)


finding that the Euro Group did not require Cyprus to take the measures causing them loss or that those measures were not required by action attributable to the EU.










(b)


considering that the ECB press release of 21 March 2013 did not cause harm to the appellants;










(c)


holding that by certain other acts the respondents did not require Cyprus to continue to implement the harmful measures and/or did not require the adoption of the harmful measures introduced by the amendments made to the harmful decrees on 30 July 2013;










(d)


considering that not all of the harmful measures were required by Council Decision 2013/236 (1);










(e)


finding that there was no serious breach of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; and the principle of non-discrimination.




The appellants argue that the harmful measures fail to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on the right to property must be provided by law and also the requirement of proportionality. They consider that the conduct of the respondents gave rise to a legitimate expectation that no bail-in measures would be taken imposing a ‘haircut’ on their assets. They consider that as depositors and/or shareholders in the Bank of Cyprus and Laiki suffered discrimination, inter alia, vis-à-vis depositors and shareholders respectively in banks in other Eurozone Member States who benefited from financial assistance similar to that granted to Cyprus.


(1)  Council Decision of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013, L 141, p. 32).