Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/28

—

(Case C-874/19 P)

(2020/C 45/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Forms of order sought

The appellant contends that the Court should:

—set aside the order delivered by the General Court on 10 October 2019, Aeris Invest v SRC, T-599/18, EU:T:2019:740, in so far it found the action to be inadmissible;

—remit the case to the General Court for judgment, bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law, in accordance with the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance; and

—reserve the decision as to costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the order under appeal infringes Article 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). According to the appellant, the act contested before the General Court has binding legal effects in so far as the definitive valuation is an integral part of the resolution decision.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the order under appeal infringes Article 17 of the Charter. The interpretation of Article 20 of Regulation 806/2014 in the order under appeal is incompatible with the right to property in so far as its permits interference with the appellant’s right to property without any compensation.

According to the third ground of appeal, the order under appeal infringes Article 20(11)(b) of Regulation 806/2014. After the resolution decision was taken and the shares were written down, the former shareholders of Banco Popular became creditors of that entity. Hence Article 20(11)(b) of Regulation 806/2014 is applicable to the former shareholders since that provision lays down the obligation to make a decision on whether to ‘write back creditors’ claims’ in the light of the definitive valuation.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the order under appeal infringes Article 20(11) and (14) of Regulation 806/2014 and Article 41 of the Charter by not taking into account that the contested act has binding legal effects on the appellant since it prevents AERIS from having access to up-to-date, complete information on the accounting position of an entity in which AERIS had a 3.45% shareholding.

—