7.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/68


Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB

(Case T-161/15)

(2015/C 294/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Dalmar investments Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands); Darlows Consultants Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas); Forestborne Ltd (Tortola); International Corporate Management Company SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Kraxis Investments Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); Magnamox Management Ltd (Nicosia); Megamatic Technologies Ltd (Nicosia); Windward Yachting Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Chupit Ltd (Nicosia); Coburg Investments (Overseas) Ltd (Nicosia); First Trade International Ltd (Tortola); Fitinvest Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus); Halman Consultants (Overseas) Ltd (Tortola); Limtan Investments Ltd (Lanarca, Cyprus); Minnesota Trading Ltd (Nicosia); Protoconsult Ltd (Nicosia); Transcoal Trading Ltd (Nicosia); and Veft Management Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: R. Nowinski, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission and European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants;

order the European Union to legal costs incurred in the bringing of this Application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they discriminated against Cyprus, and thereby, directly discriminated against depositors in Cyprus banks;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they violated the depositors’ right to protection of property as guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 5(4) of the Treaty of the European Union in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they breached the principle of proportionality in drawing up the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality negotiated by the Commission and the ECB under the authority of the European Stability Mechanism.