Action brought on 2 January 2019 –Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Others v ECB and SRB

(Case T-11/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Mutualidad de la Abogacía (Madrid, Spain) and 75 other applicants (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez, A. Munoz Aranguren and P. Hermida Paredes, lawyers)

Defendants: European Central Bank and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

Establish the non-contractual liability of the ECB and the SRB as a consequence of the failures specified in the application, and order the defendants to compensate the applicants in respect of the harm suffered, estimated at the financial value of their shares which, according to the SRB’s own ‘Evaluation 1’, amounted to EUR 2.0020217 per share; and, in the alternative, order the defendant institutions to pay compensation equivalent to EUR 0.8442 per share.

Increase the compensation awarded by compensatory interest calculated at the annual rate of inflation declared by EUROSTAT in Spain, from 6 June 2017 up to the date of judgment, plus default interest (rate set by the ECB for its primary refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points), from the date of judgment awarding compensation for the harm suffered until due payment.

Order the defendant institutions to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging a combination of illicit or negligent actions or omissions on the part of the European Central Bank. In that connection, the applicants claim:

Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, on account of the ECB, as the institution responsible for conducting the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP), having created legitimate expectations on the part of the shareholders of Banco Popular Español.

Breach of the obligation of diligence and good administration on the part of the ECB, having failed to adopt the appropriate early intervention and/or recovery measures in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A., with a failure to fulfil obligations under the Guidelines on early intervention triggers (Article 27(4) of Directive 2014/59).

Second plea in law, alleging a combination of illicit or negligent actions on the part of the Single Resolution Board. In that connection, the applicants claim:

Infringement of Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation (EU) 806/2014 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2014/59, on account of the SRB’s uncoordinated actions with the ECB, as well as the failure to update the Resolution Plan for Banco Popular Español.

Breach of the duty of confidentiality on the part of the SRB, with the related infringement of Article 339 TFEU and Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 806/2014.

Infringement of Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 806/2014, on account of the SRB’s refusal to undertake a final valuation of Banco Popular Español, and the related breach of the obligation of diligence and good administration.

____________