do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-294/22: Action brought on 21 May 2022 — Mariño Pais and Others v Commission and SRB
Date: 2022-05-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, confidentiality, damages, economic value, interest, ownership, principle of proportionality








C_2022276EN.01001201.xml










18.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 276/12






Action brought on 21 May 2022 — Mariño Pais and Others v Commission and SRB
(Case T-294/22)
(2022/C 276/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Fernando Mariño Pais (Outes, Spain) and 44 other applicants (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission, Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


find that the defendants incurred non-contractual liability and order the SRB and the Commission to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered as a result of the resolution decision relating to the BPE (Banco Popular Español S.A. and its subsidiaries);










—


order the SRB and the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings;










—


order that all the sums awarded to the applicants accrue compensatory interest as from 23 May 2017 (or, in the alternative, as from 7 June 2017) up to the date of the judgment and, in addition, default interest as from the date of the judgment, except for the costs of the present proceedings, which will accrue only default interest as from the date of the judgment, and










—


award to the applicants any additional remedy that it considers appropriate in law.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the declarations and information disclosed constituted a sufficiently serious breach of the duty of confidentiality, the principles of due diligence and of sound administration and the nemo auditur propiam turpitudinem allegans principle.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a sufficiently serious breach of the principles of due diligence, sound administration, the duty to state reasons and the principle of non-discrimination and prohibition of arbitrariness in the decision-making process.
In that regard, it is stated that the conditions to put the BPE in resolution were not satisfied, that a fair, prudent and realistic independent valuation was not guaranteed and the resolution measure is discriminatory and arbitrary.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging sufficiently serious breach of the right to private property and the principle of proportionality.