Language of document :

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — García Gómez and Others v SRB

(Case T-693/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Abel García Gómez and Others (Torrevieja, Spain) and 2199 other applicants (represented by: J. Cremades García, S. Rodríguez Bajón and M. F. Ruiz Núñez, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

Declare this action for annulment admissible and well founded;

Pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 inapplicable or, in the alternative, declare Articles 21, 22(2)(a) and 24 inapplicable, as well as Articles 18 and 23 thereof;

Annul the contested SRB Decision;

Order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants in respect of harm caused to them by the implementation of rules contrary to EU law;

In the alternative, order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants, as shareholders and creditors, based on the consideration that the Banco Popular’s valuation presented by the applicants is the final valuation under Regulation No 806/2014 in order to determine whether shareholders and creditors would have received better treatment had the institution under resolution initiated ordinary insolvency proceedings;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) allowing the resolution of the Banco Popular Español, S.A. 

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.

____________