CELEX: 62017TN0619
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-619/17: Action brought on 9 September 2017 — de la Fuente Martín and Others v SRB

8.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 5/44
            
         Action brought on 9 September 2017 — de la Fuente Martín and Others v SRB
   (Case T-619/17)
   (2018/C 005/59)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Juan Antonio de la Fuente Martín (Madrid, Spain) and 525 other applicants (represented by: M. Durán Muñoz and M. Duran Campos, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Single Resolution Board
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the resolution or decision of the Single Resolution Board, adopted at its expanded executive session of 7 June 2017 (Decision SRB/EES/2017/08), published partially and incompletely on 12 July 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A., thereby depriving it of effect and repealing it, and order the return to shareholders and owners of capital instruments of their respective shares and capital instruments of that bank and, consequently, reinstate their rights in full.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Alternatively, declare that SRB’s contested decision has caused harm to Banco Popular Español, S.A. shareholders and bond holders — harm in respect of which SRB is under an obligation to pay compensation, in accordance with Article 87 of Regulation No 806/2014 of 15 July 2014 — and order SRB and, consequently, the European Union to pay compensation to the applicants in an amount equivalent to the financial value of the shares and capital instruments which were held by the applicants the day before the adoption of the contested decision or, where appropriate, in the alternative, in an amount equivalent to the financial value those shares and instruments would have maintained had the financial institution been subject to an ordinary insolvency procedure at the time of the adoption of the contested decision.
            
         
      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.