Case C-539/22 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2022 by Antonio Del Valle Ruíz, Alejandra Pérez Mina, Alejandro Finkler Kudler, Alonso de Garay Gutiérrez, Arantzazu Del Valle Diharce, Arturo Grinberg Kreimerman, Carlos Ruíz Sacristán, Edmundo Del Valle Diharce, Elias Abadi Cherem, Enrique Rojas Blásquez, Eugenio Santiago Clariond Reyes, Fernando Ramos González de Castilla, Gerardo Madrazo Gómez, Germán Larrea Mota Velasco, Jacobo Troice Jalife, Jaime Abadi Cherem, Jorge Esteve Recolons, José Eduardo Del Valle Diharce, José Manuel Fierro Von Mohr, José María Casanueva Y Llaguno, Juan Pablo Del Valle Perochena, Julio Andrés Maza Casas, Luís de Garay Russ, Luis Francisco Suinaga Aguilár, María de Guadalupe Del Valle Perochena, Rogelio Barrenechea Cuenca, Xochitl Montero De Garay, Inmobiliaria Asturval, SA de CV, Bauhaus Partners Ltd, DGFam Fund, LP, Eureka Global Pte Ltd, Fideicomiso 70385-0 Bancomer (Antonio Cosío y Familia), Tanoak Ltd, GBM Capital Bursátil, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Fondo de Inversión Total, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Global, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, Grow Investments LP, Grupo Bursátil Mexicano, SA de CV, Casa de Bolsa, Hechos con Amor, SA de CV, Miura LP, Simple Investments LP, Terra Gamma Partners CV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-510/17, Del Valle Ruíz and Others v Commission and SRB
Date: 2022-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, Spain, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, right to justice








C_2022398EN.01001801.xml










17.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/18






Appeal brought on 10 August 2022 by Antonio Del Valle Ruíz, Alejandra Pérez Mina, Alejandro Finkler Kudler, Alonso de Garay Gutiérrez, Arantzazu Del Valle Diharce, Arturo Grinberg Kreimerman, Carlos Ruíz Sacristán, Edmundo Del Valle Diharce, Elias Abadi Cherem, Enrique Rojas Blásquez, Eugenio Santiago Clariond Reyes, Fernando Ramos González de Castilla, Gerardo Madrazo Gómez, Germán Larrea Mota Velasco, Jacobo Troice Jalife, Jaime Abadi Cherem, Jorge Esteve Recolons, José Eduardo Del Valle Diharce, José Manuel Fierro Von Mohr, José María Casanueva Y Llaguno, Juan Pablo Del Valle Perochena, Julio Andrés Maza Casas, Luís de Garay Russ, Luis Francisco Suinaga Aguilár, María de Guadalupe Del Valle Perochena, Rogelio Barrenechea Cuenca, Xochitl Montero De Garay, Inmobiliaria Asturval, SA de CV, Bauhaus Partners Ltd, DGFam Fund, LP, Eureka Global Pte Ltd, Fideicomiso 70385-0 Bancomer (Antonio Cosío y Familia), Tanoak Ltd, GBM Capital Bursátil, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Fondo de Inversión Total, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Global, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, Grow Investments LP, Grupo Bursátil Mexicano, SA de CV, Casa de Bolsa, Hechos con Amor, SA de CV, Miura LP, Simple Investments LP, Terra Gamma Partners CV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-510/17, Del Valle Ruíz and Others v Commission and SRB
(Case C-539/22 P)
(2022/C 398/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Antonio Del Valle Ruíz, Alejandra Pérez Mina, Alejandro Finkler Kudler, Alonso de Garay Gutiérrez, Arantzazu Del Valle Diharce, Arturo Grinberg Kreimerman, Carlos Ruíz Sacristán, Edmundo Del Valle Diharce, Elias Abadi Cherem, Enrique Rojas Blásquez, Eugenio Santiago Clariond Reyes, Fernando Ramos González de Castilla, Gerardo Madrazo Gómez, Germán Larrea Mota Velasco, Jacobo Troice Jalife, Jaime Abadi Cherem, Jorge Esteve Recolons, José Eduardo Del Valle Diharce, José Manuel Fierro Von Mohr, José María Casanueva Y Llaguno, Juan Pablo Del Valle Perochena, Julio Andrés Maza Casas, Luís de Garay Russ, Luis Francisco Suinaga Aguilár, María de Guadalupe Del Valle Perochena, Rogelio Barrenechea Cuenca, Xochitl Montero De Garay, Inmobiliaria Asturval, SA de CV, Bauhaus Partners Ltd, DGFam Fund, LP, Eureka Global Pte Ltd, Fideicomiso 70385-0 Bancomer (Antonio Cosío y Familia), Tanoak Ltd, GBM Capital Bursátil, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Fondo de Inversión Total, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, GBM Global, SA de CV, Fondo de Inversión de Renta Variable, Grow Investments LP, Grupo Bursátil Mexicano, SA de CV, Casa de Bolsa, Hechos con Amor, SA de CV, Miura LP, Simple Investments LP, Terra Gamma Partners CV (represented by: J. Pobjoy, Barrister-at-Law)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Single Resolution Board (SRB), Kingdom of Spain, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Banco Santander, SA

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, in line with the legal assessment of the Court of Justice; and










—


order the Council to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law:
First, the General Court erred in (a) finding that the appellants were able to exercise their right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in circumstances where the respondents failed to provide key documents which were relied upon by the respondents and/or were materially relevant to the decisions subject to the application for annulment (Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Executive Session of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español S.A. (1)), including the unredacted version of the SRB Decision, that the appellants are seeking to have annulled; and (b) failing to have regard to and/or act consistently with the requirements associated with the right to a fair hearing and equality of arms guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter.
Second, the General Court erred in finding that in order to establish that the respondents had committed a manifest error of assessment, the appellants must adduce evidence sufficient to render the factual assessments adopted by the respondents ‘implausible’.


(1)  OJ 2017 L 178, p. 15.