Action brought on 29 April 2024 – JPMorgan Chase and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Commission

(Case T-226/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (New York, New York, United States), JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: M. Lester and P. Luckhurst, Barristers-at-Law, A. Pliego Selie and R. Warning, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

order that the European Commission (“Commission”) pays the applicants interest and/or the guaranteed return on the amount of the fine imposed by the Commission’s Decision of 7 December 2016 in case AT.39914 – Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD), as annulled by the General Court in its judgment of 20 December 2023, as compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants as a consequence of the fine amount being unavailable to them between the provisional payment of the fine by the Applicants on 6 March 2017 and the annulment of the fine by the General Court (“relevant period”);

further or in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision, set out in its letter of 20 February 2024, to refuse to pay any default interest and/or compensatory interest and/or guaranteed return in respect of the fine;

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.    In support of the application for an order that the Commission pays the applicants interest and/or the guaranteed return, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, divided into four parts.

First part: the applicants were and are entitled to interest on the fine pursuant to Articles 266, 268 and/or 340 TFEU. The applicants are entitled to default interest at the relevant ECB refinancing rate (being 0 %) plus 3.5 percentage points. In the alternative, the applicants are entitled to compensatory interest at the Federal Funds Effective Rate to reflect their foregone returns on funds used to pay the fine.

Second part: the applicants are entitled to further interest on the sums wrongfully withheld by the Commission.

Third part: the Commission is required to state the amount of the guaranteed return which accrued on the fine over the relevant period and, if that return was positive, pay any such return to JPMC (as offset against the interest owed).

Fourth part: the Commission cannot avoid payment of interest by relying on the fact that a new fine was imposed by the General Court on 20 December 2023 because no lawful fine existed during the relevant period.

2.    In support of their application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to pay interest and/or the guaranteed return, the applicants rely on a single plea in law: in refusing to pay interest and/or the guaranteed return to the applicants, the Commission erred in law and/or made a manifest error of assessment. In particular, the refusal constituted a breach of the Commission’s obligations under Article 266 TFEU.

____________