do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-529/17: Action brought on 10 August 2017 — Blasi Gómez and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-08-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017369EN.01002101.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/21





Action brought on 10 August 2017 — Blasi Gómez and Others v SRB
(Case T-529/17)
(2017/C 369/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Carlos Blasi Gómez (Tarragona, Spain), María Dolores Cruells Torelló (Sabadell, Spain), Asociación Independiente de Afectados por el Popular (AIAP) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Pineda Cuadrado, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017;










—


In the alternative, in the event that the above head of claim is not upheld, annul in part the decision, with respect to the valuation of the institution, the Court having to carry out, or order the carrying out of, a fair, actual and equitable valuation of the Banco Popular Español which implies the compensation of all its shareholders and creditors in accordance with the new valuation;










—


In the further alternative, in the event that the neither of the previous heads of claim is upheld, annul in part the decision, with respect to the valuation of the institution, the Court having to carry out, or order the carrying out of, a fair, actual and equitable valuation of the Banco Popular Español which implies the compensation of the applicants, as shareholders and creditors of that institution in accordance with the new valuation;










—


Expressly order the Institution whose act is contested to pay the costs incurred.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
Case C-485/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin e.V. v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH
Date: 2017-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, personal property, real property, retail outlet, retail selling, trade event








C_2017392EN.01001301.xml










20.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin e.V. v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH
(Case C-485/17)
(2017/C 392/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin e.V.

Defendant: Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does a trade fair stand in a hall which is used by a trader for the purpose of selling his products during a trade fair taking place for a few days each year constitute immovable retail premises within the meaning of Article 2(9)(a) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) or movable retail premises within the meaning of Article 2(9)(b) of Directive 2011/83/EU?










2.


If it constitutes movable retail premises:
Is the question whether a trader carries out his activity ‘on a usual basis’ on trade fair stands to be answered by reference to






(a)


how the trader organises his activity or










(b)


whether the consumer can expect to conclude a contract for the goods concerned at the trade fair in question?














3.


If, in the answer to the second question, the perspective of the consumer is relevant (Question 2(b)):
In connection with the question whether the consumer can expect to conclude a contract for the goods concerned at the trade fair in question, must regard be had to how the trade fair is presented to the public or to how the trade fair actually appears to the consumer when he makes the contractual declaration?






(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.