Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and SRB

(Case T-497/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Manuel Alfonso Sánchez del Valle (Madrid, Spain) and Calatrava Real State 2015 (Madrid) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

Annul the Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board at its executive session of 7 June 2017 to adopt the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

Order the defendant[s] and the interveners to pay the costs in respect of all or part of the claims.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on 11 pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging lacking or insufficient reasoning for the contested decision, which entails infringement of Articles 41(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 by failing to carry out a reasonable, prudent and realistic valuation of the assets and liabilities of Banco Popular by an independent person before the resolution decision.

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014, insofar as the contested decisions uphold the resolution of Banco Popular while, as at 6 June 2017, that bank had no solvency problems and its liquidity problems were temporary.

Infringement of Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the contested decisions consent to the resolution of Banco Popular, while there were reasonable prospects that other means from the private sector could prevent it become unviable within a reasonable time.

Infringement of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, since no attempt was made to minimise the cost of the resolution and avoid the destruction of wealth, which was unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the resolution.

Infringement of Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, by failing to weight the contested decisions and adopt resolution tools other than the sale of the business, provided for in paragraph 2 thereof, in accordance with the factors set out in paragraph 3.

Infringement of Article 15(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the shareholders ought to have received more than they would receive in the event of insolvency.

Infringement of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.

Infringement of the right to property and, in consequence, of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Infringement of the right to an effective remedy, given the inability of the shareholders to protect their position.

Infringement of the right of the shareholders and other holders of securities included in the scope of the write-down and conversion to be heard before adoption of the individual measure, which adversely affects them, of write-down of their assets.

____________