Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2022:312
Date: 2022-06-01
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Subject matter: Economic and monetary policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Netherlands

summary of those pleas in law. It must, accordingly, specify the grounds on which the action is based, with the result that a mere abstract statement of the grounds is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary, without any further information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action or, more specifically, a plea in law, is to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see judgments of 12 September 2018, De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament, T‑788/16, not published, EU:T:2018:534, paragraphs 72 and 73 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2019, PT v EIB, T‑571/16, not published, EU:T:2019:301, paragraph 109 and the case-law cited). 563 It must be noted that, as the applicants themselves state in the application and in the reply, the plea alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is not supported by any specific arguments. Therefore, since it has not been explained, it must be rejected as inadmissible. 564 In any event, as regards the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, in accordance with settled case-law, the right to rely on that principle presupposes that precise, unconditional and consistent assurances, originating from authorised, reliable sources, have been given to the person concerned by the competent authorities of the European Union. That right applies to any individual in a situation in which an institution, body or agency of the European Union, by giving that person precise assurances, has led him or her to entertain well-founded expectations (see judgment of 19 July 2016, Kotnik and Others, C‑526/14, EU:C:2016:570, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 16 December 2020, Council and Others v K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others, C‑597/18 P, C‑598/18 P, C‑603/18 P and C‑604/18 P, EU:C:2020:1028, paragraph 178 and the case-law cited). 565 It is sufficient to note that the applicants do not refer to any specific assurance capable of having led them to entertain expectations that the 2016 resolution plan would be applied. 566 Moreover, in so far as, according to the applicants, it is necessary to interpret their assertion, in the reply, that the SRB and the Commission have not explained their decision to depart from the 2016 resolution plan as constituting an argument alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, it is sufficient to refer, as did the Commission, the SRB and the Kingdom of Spain, to the grounds set out in recitals 19 to 22 of the resolution scheme, which are not disputed by the applicants. 567 Consequently, the eighth plea in law must be rejected as inadmissible. The application for measures of organisation of procedure 568 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 9 October 2018, the applicants requested the Court to order the SRB and the Commission, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure on the basis of Article 88 of the Rules of Procedure, to produce a certain number of documents, the list of which is annexed to that application. The applicants state that the requested documents correspond to the factual arguments contained in the defence of the SRB and the Commission and that they must be disclosed so that the applicants can respond to them. In the absence of those documents, it is not possible for the applicants to respond to the defences or for the Court to assess the legality of the contested decisions. 569 The Commission and the SRB consider that that application does not comply with the requirements of Article 88(2) of the Rules of Procedure, in so far as the applicants have failed to explain why they were not able to submit that application previously and they have not set out precisely the reasons why the requested documents were necessary for purposes of the resolution of the dispute. 570 It must be noted that, by its order for a measure of inquiry of 21 May 2021, pursuant to Article 91(b), Article 92(3) and Article 103 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court ordered the SRB to produce certain documents referred to in paragraph 95 above. By order of 16 June 2021, the Court held that the documents produced by the SRB in their confidential version were not relevant to the resolution of the dispute. By contrast, the letter from Banco Popular to the ECB of 6 June 2017, without its annex, was communicated to the other parties. 571 As regards applications made by a party for measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry, it must be recalled that the Court is the sole judge of any need to supplement the information available to it in respect of the cases before it (see judgment of 26 January 2017, Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission, C‑619/13 P, EU:C:2017:50, paragraph 117 and the case-law cited; judgment of 12 November 2020, Fleig v EEAS, C‑446/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:918, paragraph 53). 572 It is important to note in that regard that, to enable the Court to determine the usefulness of measures of organisation of procedure, the party requesting them must identify the documents requested and provide the Court with at least minimum information indicating the utility of those documents for the purposes of the proceedings (see judgments of 28 July 2011 Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and Others v Commission, C‑474/09 P to C‑476/09 P, not published, EU:C:2011:522, paragraph 92 and the case-law cited, and of 20 March 2019, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission, T‑766/16, EU:T:2019:173, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited). 573 In the present case, it must be noted that the information contained in the file and the explanations provided during the hearing are sufficient to enable the Court to give judgment, since it has been able to give a proper ruling on the basis of the forms of order sought, the pleas in law and the arguments put forward during the proceedings and in the light of the documents lodged by the parties. 574 It follows that the applicants’ application for measures of organisation of procedure must be rejected, without it being necessary to rule on the admissibility of that application under Article 88(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 575 It must be concluded that the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 576 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission, the SRB and Banco Santander, in accordance with the forms of order sought by the latter three parties. 577 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. The Kingdom of Spain, the Parliament and the Council must therefore bear their own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Mr Antonio Del Valle Ruíz and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Banco Santander, SA; 3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. Van der Woude Jaeger De Baere Kreuschitz Steinfatt Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 1 June 2022. E. Coulon G. De Baere Registrar President Table of contents Legal framework Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the action being brought The situation of Banco Popular before the resolution scheme was adopted Other facts prior to the adoption of the resolution scheme The resolution scheme for Banco Popular of 7 June 2017 Facts subsequent to the adoption of the resolution decision Procedure and forms of order sought Law The first plea in law, alleging that Article 18 of Regulation No 806/2014 infringes the right to be heard and the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter and infringes the principle of proportionality The first part, alleging that Article 18 of Regulation No 806/2014 infringes the right to be heard The second part, alleging that Article 18 of Regulation No 806/2014 infringes the right to an effective remedy The third part, alleging that Article 18 of Regulation No 806/2014 infringes the principle of proportionality The ninth plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 and 22 of Regulation No 806/2014 are unlawful in that they infringe the principles relating to the delegation of power The fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20 of Regulation No 806/2014 The first complaint, relating to valuation 1 The second complaint, relating to valuation 2 The third complaint, relating to the absence of an ex post definitive valuation The fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 806/2014 The first part, alleging infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation No 806/2014 The second part, alleging infringement of Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation No 806/2014 The sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 806/2014 The second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter The first complaint, relating to the right to be heard The second complaint, relating to the right to effective judicial protection The third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property The seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons The eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations The application for measures of organisation of procedure Costs * Language of the case: English. 1 The list of the other applicants is annexed only to the version sent to the parties.