Council of the European Union v Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others (C-597/18 P, C-598/18 P, C-603/18 P, C-604/18 P)

Judgment of 16 Dec 2020

law://eu/cjeu/2018/c-597-18/para_159@2026-11-13

159As to the appellants’ argument that, contrary to what the General Court held in paragraph 282 of the first judgment under appeal and paragraph 281 of the second judgment under appeal, the establishment of a procedure providing for prior consultation of the depositors and shareholders of the banks concerned would have been possible, it must be stated that the General Court correctly based its reasoning, in those paragraphs of the judgments under appeal, on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 July 2016, Mamatas and Others v. Greece (CE:ECHR:2016:0721JUD006306614), from which it is clear that the requirement that any restriction on the right to property must be provided for by law cannot be interpreted as meaning that the persons concerned should have been consulted before the adoption of that law, in particular where such prior consultation would inevitably have delayed the application of the measures designed to prevent the collapse of the banks concerned.

Council of the European Union v Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others (C-597/18 P, C-598/18 P, C-603/18 P, C-604/18 P)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections