Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62014TN0496

    Case T-496/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Berry Investments v Council

    OJ C 292, 1.9.2014, p. 53–54 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    26/06/2014
    Date lodged:
    26/06/2014
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    Greek
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    1.9.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 292/53

    Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Berry Investments v Council

    (Case T-496/14)

    2014/C 292/65

    Language of the case: Greek

    Parties

    Applicant: Berry Investments (Monrovia, Liberia) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 4 36  357 ,19, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

    —

    in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicant 4/5 of the above amount, that is, the sum of EUR 3 49  085 ,75, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

    —

    in the further alternative, order the defendant to pay such amount as the General Court shall determine to the applicant as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts;

    —

    order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50  000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

    —

    order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50  000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and

    —

    order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    By this action, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU the applicant seeks from the General Court of the European Union, which has jurisdiction under Article 268 TFEU, reparation in respect of the damage it has suffered because of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

    The applicant maintains that that damage arose when the defendant, acting ultra vires and contrary to secondary EU law and to the general principles of EU law, imposed and, consequently, caused the reduction of the applicant’s bank deposits in Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd. (Laiki Τrapeza) and, in any event, contributed to it.

    In particular, the applicant maintains that the defendant committed the following infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law:

    —

    First, infringement of the right to property;

    —

    Second, infringement of the principle of equal treatment· and

    —

    Third, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty.

    —

    The applicant submits that the conditions, as laid down in settled case-law, for the defendant incurring non-contractual liability to pay compensation to it, are satisfied.
    Top