Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB

(Case T-107/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Frank Steinhoff (Hamburg, Germany), Ewald Filbry (Dortmund, Germany), Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG (Gräfenberg, Germany), Werner Bäcker (Rodgau, Germany), EMB Consulting SE (Mühltal, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should order the defendant to pay the following sums plus interest in each case at a rate of 5% above the respective base rate from the date on which the action was commenced:

–    to the first applicant: EUR 314 000;

–    to the second applicant: EUR 54 950;

–    to the third applicant: EUR 2 355 000;

–    to the fourth applicant: EUR 303 795;

–    to the fifth applicant: EUR 750 460.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action for damages, the applicants claim that the defendant breached its obligations by failing to refer, in its opinion of 17 February 2012 on the terms of securities issued or guaranteed by the Greek State (CON/2012/12), to the unlawfulness of the proposed restructuring of Greece’s public debt through a mandatory exchange by Law 4050/2012.

In support of the action, the applicants raise four pleas in law.

First plea in law: failure to refer to the impermissibility of the compulsory restructuring in the light of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, since amending clauses cannot effectively be inserted retroactively into existing government bonds

Second plea in law: failure to find that the expropriatory effect of the envisaged Greek legislative proposal, which provided for a mandatory exchange without appropriate compensation being laid down in the legislation itself, constituted an infringement of the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Third plea in law: failure to refer to an infringement of Article 63 TFEU

Fourth plea in law: failure to refer to an infringement of Article 124 TFEU

____________