Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/7

—

(Case C-782/21 P)

(2022/C 128/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission and Banco Santander, S.A.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General Court of 6 October 2021, Aeris Invest v ECB, T-827/17, EU:T:2021:660;

—uphold the form of order sought by Aeris Invest at first instance and, in particular, declare null and void the decisions of the European Central Bank of 7 November 2017, LS/MD/17/405, LS/MD/17/419 and LS/MD/17/406, which refused access to a number of documents concerning the failure and resolution of Banco Popular Español, S.A., the deposit balance and the ELA facility granted to Banco Popular Español, S.A.; and

—order the European Central Bank to pay the costs in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal against the judgment under appeal.

—By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the basis that: (i) it is not possible to request access to the documents sought in Case T-628/17; and (ii) the judgment under appeal prevents that party from exercising its right to an effective remedy and increases the inequality of arms between the parties. In any event, that restriction of Article 47 of the Charter is not justifiable under Article 52(1) of the Charter.

—By the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal infringes the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (‘Decision 2004/258’), read together with Article 47 of the Charter. In particular, it infringes Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Decision 2004/258 by interpreting the purpose of Decision 2004/258 in a manner contrary to fundamental rights.

* Language of the case: Spanish.

(OJ L 80, of 18 March 2004, p. 42)

—