The Court of Justice of the European Union rejected, on Wednesday 16 December, the actions for damages brought by individuals and companies claiming compensation for behaviour and acts of EU institutions which led to the macroeconomic rescue of Cyprus in 2013 (cases C-603 and 604/18).
In July 2018, the General Court of the EU rejected the claims for compensation of account holders and shareholders of the Cypriot banks Laïki and Bank of Cyprus (see EUROPE 12062/30). The complainants said they had incurred damages from the Eurogroup statement of March 2013 and the subsequent EU Council Decision (2013/236) of April 2013, which led to the rescue plan for Cyprus and the restructuring of the Cypriot banking sector.
Relying on the conclusions of the Advocate General (see EUROPE 12495/31), the Court is of the opinion that the conversion of uninsured bank deposits (above €100,000) into Bank of Cyprus shares, imposed under the Cypriot rescue plan, cannot be regarded as constituting a disproportionate and intolerable interference impairing the right to property. According to the case-law (Cases C-8 & 10/15), this right is not an absolute prerogative.
Nor could the complainants legitimately expect that their uninsured deposits and claims would not be cut or converted, because previous macroeconomic bailouts of euro area countries had not foreseen this. In addition, the Court rejects any infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to other depositors or shareholders.
Eurogroup. Furthermore, the European Court welcomes favourably the objections of inadmissibility raised by the EU Council concerning the actions of depositors and shareholders specifically directed against the Eurogroup (Cases C-597 and 598/18).
As an informal intergovernmental entity for coordinating the economic policies of the euro area countries, the Eurogroup is not a configuration of the EU Council and is not competent to sanction non-compliance with the political agreements concluded within it.
The Court concludes that the General Court was wrong in holding that the Euro Group is an ’EU body’ established by the Treaties, whose conduct would be capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability of the European Union.
Complainants can always bring an action for non-contractual liability on the part of the Union against acts or behaviour which EU institutions - the Commission, the EU Council, the ECB - have adopted following political agreements of the Eurogroup.
See the judgment of the Court: https://bit.ly/2KeKKQS (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)