Action brought on 20 December 2013 – K. Chrysostomides & Co. e.a. v Council e.a.

(Case T-680/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 50 other applicants (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union represented by the European Commission, Eurogroup represented by Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

Order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to :

Find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

Determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants;

Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants (51 in total) are depositors and/or shareholders of the Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd and/or Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. They seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU, for the loss that they have suffered as a result of the measures taken by the defendant institutions imposing a bail-in scheme on the Republic of Cyprus.

The applicants consider that the defendant institutions adopted a bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus which led directly to the loss of their deposits and shareholdings. In the view of the applicants, the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions.

The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme violates the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicants also argue that the bail-in scheme infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the principle of non-discrimination.