CELEX: 62018TA0161
Language: en
Date: 2021-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-161/18: Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Braesch and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid for the precautionary restructuring of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena — Preliminary examination stage — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Plea of inadmissibility — Status as an interested party — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi — Admissibility)

17.5.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 189/16
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Braesch and Others v Commission
      (Case T-161/18) (1)
      
      (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid for the precautionary restructuring of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena - Preliminary examination stage - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Plea of inadmissibility - Status as an interested party - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Admissibility)
      (2021/C 189/17)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Anthony Braesch (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Trinity Investments DAC (Dublin, Ireland), Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands), Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman), Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP (Grand Cayman) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Champsaur, G. Faella and L. Prosperetti, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)
      
         Re:
      
      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017 on State Aid SA.47677 (2017/N) — Italy — New aid and amended restructuring plan of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Reserves the costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.