(25) Απόφαση που υιοθετήθηκε από τη διοικητική επιτροπή της FROB στις 7 Ιουνίου 2017 σχετικά με την Banco Popular Español SA: http://www. frob.es/en/Lists/Contenidos/Attachments/419/ProyectodeAcuerdoreducido_EN_v1.pdf. EL C 22/14 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης 22.1.2020 31 Έως τα τέλη του 2018, η FROB είχε λάβει 115 διοικητικές προσφυγές κατά της προαναφερθείσας εκτελεστικής απόφασης και τις είχε απορρίψει όλες. 
EN C 22/14 Official Journal of the European Union 22 1 2020 31 By the end of 2018, FROB had received 115 administrative appeals against the above-mentioned implementing decision and dismissed all of them FROB had also received 1 063 requests for the initiation of administrative proceedings on non-contractual liability of the state under Spanish national law Furthermore, applicants had brought 262 court cases against FROB However, it needs to be highlighted that the latter judicial proceedings have been suspended by the Spanish ÔAudiencia NacionalŐ until the GC has adopted its ruling on the legality of the resolution decision and related aspects such as the confidentiality of related administrative files 32 After a request by the SRB, FROB has assessed the probability of an outflow of resources as a result of the administrative proceedings to be remote It has informed the SRB that it is not in a position to estimate the outcome of the suspended judicial proceedings, as these proceedings largely depend on the outcome of proceedings at EU level 33 In addition to the judicial proceedings described under this heading, several new cases were brought before the SRBŐs appeal panel (26) in relation to the resolution of BPE However, these cases only concerned access to documents, so no contingent liabilities could arise Contingent liabilities related to the no-creditor-worse-off principle 34 To safeguard fundamental property rights (27), the SRM Regulation provides that no creditor shall be worse off under resolution than under normal insolvency proceedings Based on the Ôno creditor worse offŐ (NCWO) principle (28), any creditors who would have received better treatment under normal insolvency proceedings must be compensated from the SRF (29) To assess the treatment of creditors and shareholders, a valuation of difference in treatment has to be conducted (see Box 3) Box 3 Valuation of difference in treatment A valuation of difference in treatment in resolution is conducted by an independent valuer after any resolution to determine whether shareholders and creditors in respect of which resolution actions have been effected are entitled to such compensation The valuation is often referred to as valuation 3 The valuation of difference in treatment assumes that instead of resolution, the respective bank would have been subject to normal insolvency proceedings based on national insolvency law starting at the date of resolution It then compares how creditors and shareholders would have been affected in such a scenario in comparison to the resolution Source: ECA analysis of SRM Regulation 35 On 13 June 2018, the SRB announced that it had received from the independent valuer, Deloitte, its report on valuation of difference in treatment in the resolution for BPE Based on the outcome of this valuation and the preliminary conclusion that no creditor would have been better off under national insolvency, on 6 August 2018, the SRB published a notice regarding its preliminary decision not to pay compensation to the shareholders and creditors affected by the BPE resolution (30) The SRB estimates that there are around 300 000 of them (31) (26) Certain SRB decisions, such as on administrative contributions and access to documents, can be appealed at the SRBŐs appeal panel, based on Article 85 SRM Regulation (27) Article 17(1) CFREU (28) Articles 15(1g) of SRM Regulation (29) Articles 20(16) and 76(1e) of SRM Regulation (30) Notice of the Single Resolution Board of 2 August 2018 regarding its preliminary decision on whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of which the resolution actions concerning Banco Popular Espaol S A have been effected and the launching of the right to be heard process (SRB/EES/2018/132) (31) SRB annual report 2018, footnote 16, p 32