8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/46

(Case T-690/17)

(2018/C 005/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Uluru, SL (Madrid, Spain), Juan Adolfo Álvarez Lorenzana (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) and Raquel Fortet Rodríguez (Madrid) (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, J. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín, P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—Annul SRB’s decision SRB/EES/2017/08 and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017 and, consequently, (i) order SRB and the European Commission to reinstate in favour of the applicants their investments in Banco Popular in the terms set out in the application or, (ii) in the alternative, order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability in the terms set out in the application;

—Order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability in the terms set out in the application;

—Declare the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert invalid and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants in the terms set out in the present application;

—Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

—Order that all the sums awarded to the applicants accrue compensatory interest as of 23 May 2017 (or, in the alternative, as of 7 June 2017) up to the date of the judgment and, additionally, default interest as of the date of the judgment, except for the costs resulting from the present proceedings, which will only accrue default interest as of the date of the judgment; and

—Award to the applicants any additional remedy that it considers appropriate in law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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.