Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Aeris Invest v SRB

(Case T-599/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, P. Medina Sánchez and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of 14 September 2018;

Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) of 14 September 2018 not to carry out an ex-post definitive valuation in the context of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning a resolution scheme in respect of the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A. (‘the contested decision’), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 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 and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1). That plea is divided into three parts.

First part, based on the argument that the contested decision determines the possibility to write back creditors’ claims or increase the value of the consideration paid without carrying out an ex-post definitive valuation.

Second part, based on the argument that the SRB did not verify that the information on which the valuation is based are as recent and complete as possible and, accordingly, any losses incurred on the assets of an entity may be fully taken into account.

Third part, based on infringement of the Meroni case-law in that the Commission should have given its consent to the SRB’s decision not to ensure that an ex-post definitive valuation is carried out.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power which vitiates the contested decision and which a body of objective, relevant and consistent evidence demonstrates. In that regard, the applicant maintains that the contested decision does not follow the procedure of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 referred to above and that SRB’s aim in adopting that decision is to hide the real situation of Banco Popular Español, S.A.

____________