Judgment_paragraph 181 · 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)

181Whilst it is true that the case which gave rise to that judgment differs factually from the present cases, the fact remains that the finding made by the Court in paragraph 65 of that judgment, that the circumstance that the subordinated creditors of the banks concerned – that is to say, the creditors who are paid after bondholders but before shareholders in the event of the insolvency or winding up of the issuing entity – had not been called upon to contribute to the rescue of credit institutions in the first phases of the international financial crisis was not capable of engendering a legitimate expectation on the part of the shareholders and the subordinated creditors that they would not be subject to burden-sharing measures in the future, remains valid and applicable, by analogy, to the present instances. That finding must be read in the light of paragraph 66 of that judgment, in which the Court pointed out that, while the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the European Union, economic operators are not, however, justified in having a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the EU institutions in the exercise of their discretion will be maintained, particularly in a field subject to constant adjustment to reflect changes in the economic situation.

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

Connections

History · 1 version