Case C-541/22 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2022 by Araceli García Fernández and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-523/17, Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB
Date: 2022-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, Spain, access to EU information, bank, bank resolution, company in difficulties, financial solvency, interest, interpretation of the law








C_2022441EN.01000502.xml










21.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/5






Appeal brought on 11 August 2022 by Araceli García Fernández and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 June 2022 in Case T-523/17, Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB
(Case C-541/22 P)
(2022/C 441/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Araceli García Fernández, Faustino González Parra, Fernando Luis Treviño de Las Cuevas, Juan Antonio Galán Alcázar, Lucía Palazuelo Vallejo-Nágera, Macon, SA, Marta Espejel García, Memphis Investments Ltd, Pedro Alcántara de la Herrán Matorras, Pedro José de Jesús Benito Trebbau López, Pedro Regalado Cuadrado Martínez, María Rosario Mari Juan Domingo (represented by: B. M. Cremades Román, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Eleveté Invest Group, SL, Antonio Bail Cajal, Carlos Sobrini Marín, Edificios 1326 de l'Hospitalet, SL, Juan José Homs Tapias, Anna María Torras Giro, Marbore 2000, SL, Tristán González del Valle, European Commission, Single Resolution Board (SRB), Kingdom of Spain, Banco Santander, SA

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:






(i)


acknowledge the lodging of the appeal and its supporting documents, as well as the claims it contains;










(ii)


in accordance with Article 256 TFEU, Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, rule as follows:






(a)


set aside the judgment of the General Court in its entirety or, alternatively, in part, as set out in Sections III and IV of the appeal;










(b)


issue a judgment in accordance with line 219 of the application;










(c)


order the SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;










(d)


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










(e)


order that all sums awarded to the appellants accrue compensatory interest as of 23 May 2017 (or, alternatively, as of 7 June 2017) until the date of delivery of the judgment and, additionally, default interest as of the date of the judgment, except for the costs resulting from the present proceedings, which will only accrue default interest as of the date of the judgment; and










(f)


grant the appellants any additional remedy that it considers appropriate in law.









Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants challenge all the grounds and the operative part of the General Court’s judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that it is vitiated by numerous errors in the application and interpretation of EU law, inadequate and contradictory reasoning, and errors in the legal characterisation and consequences of the facts and the assessment of the evidence.
In that regard, the appellants raise four grounds of appeal in support of their claims.
By the first ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in the interpretation and application of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund (‘SRMR’).
In the first part of the first ground of appeal, the appellants claim erroneous interpretation and application of Article 18(1)(a) SRMR relating to the need for liquidity assistance, the breach of confidentiality obligations and the interpretation of the principle of sound administration. In the second part of the first ground of appeal, the appellants claim inadequate reasoning and misinterpretation of Article 18(1)(b) SRMR. In that regard, it is submitted that Banco Popular Español was not insolvent and that the SRB had other, less harmful alternatives available to it. In the third part of the first ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the GC erred in its interpretation and application of Article 18(1)(c) SRMR.
With regard to the second ground of appeal, the appellants take the view that the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 20 SRMR. In this regard, the appellants allege errors of interpretation and application of Article 20(1), (5), (7), (9), (10) and (11) SRMR. Furthermore, in the fifth part of the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in the interpretation and application of the right of access to the expropriation file, since its reasoning was contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the sixth part of the second ground of appeal, the appellants refer to the error of law in the assessment of the obligation to state reasons.
The third ground of appeal is based on the claim for compensation made in connection with the annulment of the decision at issue with confirmation of its effects.
With regard to the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in its interpretation and application of the SRMR in relation to the claim for non-contractual liability independent of the claim for annulment. The first part of the fourth ground of appeal analyses how the General Court manifestly erred in interpreting and applying Recital 116 and Articles 88 and 91 SRMR and Article 339 TFEU with a standard of protection far below that laid down by the European Union in banking resolution matters. At the same time, the appellants claim erroneous interpretation and application of the SRMR through an infringement of the duty of due diligence. Finally, in the second part of the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants allege erroneous interpretation and application of Article 20(15) and (16) SRMR, and failure to provide a reasoned response.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1.