C 441/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
21.11.2022
(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.