17.10.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/14

(Case T-379/16)

(2016/C 383/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Basicmed Enterprises Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) and 19 others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Kakoulli, P. Panayides and C. Pericleous, lawyers)

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

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 16 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court; and

—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; and

—order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU and the ECB, for damage suffered by the diminution of the applicants’ deposits as a result of the bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus adopted by the defendants.

The applicants consider that 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 is a serious violation and in support of their action, they rely on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging violation of 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.

2.Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

3.Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination.