Joined Cases C‑105/15 P to C‑109/15 P

Konstantinos Mallis and Others

v

European Commission

and

European Central Bank (ECB)

(Appeals — Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus — Eurogroup statement concerning, in particular, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus — Actions for annulment)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 20 September 2016

1.        Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the General Court’s interpretation or application of EU law  — Admissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

2.        Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)

3.        Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Eurogroup statement authorising the Commission and the European Central Bank to begin negotiations with a Member State relating to a macro-economic adjustment programme — Not included

(Arts 137 TFEU and 263(1) TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties, Art. 1; Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism)

4.        Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Eurogroup — Not a body, office or agency of the European Union

(Art. 16(6) TEU; Arts 137 TFEU and 263(1) TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties; Council Decision 2009/937, Annex)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 32-36)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 45)

3.      An action for annulment is available against all measures adopted by the EU institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

That is not so in the case of the Eurogroup statement of 25 March 2013 concerning, in particular, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus. The Commission and the European Central Bank were, in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), entrusted by the ESM’s Board of Governors with the task of negotiating with the authorities of a Member State a macro-economic adjustment programme to be set out in the form of a memorandum of understanding. In that regard, the role of the Commission and the Bank as defined by Article 1 of Protocol No 14 on the Eurogroup cannot be wider than the role accorded to those institutions by the ESM Treaty. Whilst the ESM Treaty entrusts to the Commission and the Bank certain tasks relating to the attainment of the objectives of that Treaty, first, the duties conferred on the Commission and the Bank within the ESM Treaty do not entail the exercise of any power to make decisions of their own and, secondly, the activities pursued by those two institutions within the ESM Treaty commit the ESM alone.

Furthermore, the fact that the Commission and the Bank participate in the meetings of the Eurogroup does not alter the nature of the latter’s statements and cannot result in the statement at issue being considered to be the expression of a decision-making power of those two EU institutions. Nor is there anything in that Eurogroup statement reflecting a decision of the Commission and the Bank to create a legal obligation on the Member State concerned to implement the measures which it contains. That statement, of a purely informative nature, is intended to inform the general public of the existence of a political agreement between the Eurogroup and the authorities of the Member State concerned reflecting a common intention to pursue the negotiations in accordance with the statement’s terms.

(see paras 51-53, 57-59)

4.      Since not only the term ‘informally’ is used in the wording of Protocol No 14 on the Eurogroup, annexed to the FEU Treaty, but also the Eurogroup is not among the different configurations of the Council enumerated in Annex I to its Rules of Procedure adopted by Decision 2009/937, the list of which is referred to in Article 16(6) TEU, the Eurogroup referred to in Article 137 TFEU cannot be equated with a configuration of the Council or be classified as a body, office or agency of the European Union within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU.

(see para. 61)