Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-147/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Nikolaos Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia, Greece), Aristeidis Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Alexia Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Sophie Velliou (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: K. Floros and M. Meng-Papantoni, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare the present application admissible and well-founded;

Uphold the applicants’ claims for damages by awarding the sum of EUR 123 442 to the first applicant, the sum of EUR 61 721 to the three following applicants and the sum of EUR 120 900 to the fifth applicant or, in the alternative, the sums of EUR 38 227.20, EUR 19 107.60 and EUR 37 440 respectively, together with default interest in each case;

Order the defendant[s] to pay the costs, whatever the outcome of the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants allege an infringement of the fundamental principle of prohibition of discrimination insofar as it requires different treatment of different situations, and of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), which gives effect to that principle.

They complain, claiming significant financial losses as a result of their State obligations being subject to Law 4050/12, also known as ‘PSI’ (Private Sector Investment), that they received the same treatment (including the same rate of ‘haircut’) as legal persons, in particular banks and specialised funds, despite their fundamental differences.

They hold, firstly, the Eurogroup President and/or the Eurogroup as such responsible for this, since they prohibited not only the exemption of natural persons from the ‘haircut’ but also from any later compensatory measure, and, secondly, the Commission, which gave its agreement and consent to such an infringement of the abovementioned principle and of Article 21 of the Charter, despite the obligation place on it by Article 17 TEU, as interpreted by the judgment 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).

____________