In Case T‑868/16

35By application lodged at the Court Registry on 11December 2016, the applicants brought the present action against the Commission and the ECB.

36By document lodged at the Court Registry on 13March 2017, the European Council and the Council of the European Union jointly sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Commission and the ECB. By decision of 26April 2017, the President of the Third Chamber of the General Court granted that application for leave to intervene. The European Council and the Council submitted their statement in intervention and the other parties submitted their observations thereon within the prescribed time limit.

37Acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Third Chamber) decided to open the oral part of the procedure and, by way of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, invited the Commission and the ECB to reply to written questions and asked the ECB to produce extracts from the exchange agreement of 15February 2012. The Commission and the ECB complied with those measures within the prescribed periods.

38At the hearing on 12September 2018, the parties presented oral argument and replied to oral questions put by the Court.

39By order of 26October 2018, the Court decided to reopen the oral part of the procedure.

40By decision of 13November 2018, after the parties had been heard, the President of the Third Chamber decided, in accordance with Article69(d) of the Rules of Procedure, to stay the proceedings pending the decisions of the Court of Justice on the appeals brought in Cases C‑597/18P, C‑598/18P, C‑603/18P and C‑604/18P against the judgments of 13July 2018, K.Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (T‑680/13, EU:T:2018:486), and of 13July 2018, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T‑786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487).

41By judgment of 16December 2020, Council and Others v K.Chrysostomides & Co. and Others (C‑597/18P, C‑598/18P, C‑603/18P and C‑604/18P, EU:C:2020:1028), the Court of Justice set aside, in part, the judgments of 13July 2018, K.Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (T‑680/13, EU:T:2018:486), and of 13July 2018, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T‑786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487), and dismissed the actions as inadmissible in so far as they were directed against the Eurogroup.

42By way of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article89 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court invited the parties to state their views on the consequences which they envisaged to draw from the order of 12March 2020, EMB Consulting and Others v ECB (C‑571/19P, not published, EU:C:2020:208) and from the judgment of 16December 2020, Council and Others v K.Chrysostomides & Co. and Others (C‑597/18P, C‑598/18P, C‑603/18P and C‑604/18P, EU:C:2020:1028), in respect of the outcome of the present case. The parties lodged their observations within the prescribed period.

43The applicants claim that the Court should:

–order the European Union or the ECB to compensate them for the amounts set out in paragraph133 of the application, corresponding to the damage which they suffered as a result of their forced involvement in the restructuring of Greek public debt by means of the activation of ‘retrofit’ CACs;

–in the alternative, order the European Union or the ECB to compensate them for the amounts set out in paragraph138 of the application, corresponding to the damage which they suffered as a result of the absence of involvement by the Hellenic Republic’s official sector creditors in the restructuring of Greek public debt;

–in any event, order the ECB to compensate them for the damage described in paragraph139 of the application, resulting from the absence of Eurosystem involvement in the restructuring of Greek public debt;

–order the European Union or the ECB to pay the costs.

44The Commission and the ECB, supported by the European Council and the Council, contend that the Court should:

–dismiss the action;

–order the applicants to pay the costs.