Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TN0405

    Case T-405/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Holmer Dahl v SRB

    OJ C 294, 20.8.2018, p. 59–60 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    201808030662050952018/C 294/744052018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180703596022

    Case T-405/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Holmer Dahl v SRB

    Top

    C2942018EN5920120180703EN0074592602

    Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Holmer Dahl v SRB

    (Case T-405/18)

    2018/C 294/74Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Helene Holmer Dahl (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, C. Iglesias Megías and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

    Defendant: Single Resolution Board

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of both its actions and omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. shares she owned;

    Order the Board to pay the following amounts to the applicant as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered (‘the amount due’):

    As compensation for pecuniary damage, the total sum of EUR 160558,41 in respect of the redemption of shares in Banco Popular; and

    As compensation for non-pecuniary damage, a sum of up to EUR 160558,41 or such amount as the General Court shall see fit to award.

    Increase the amount due with corresponding compensatory interest, as of 7 July 2017 until the date of delivery of judgment disposing of the present case;

    Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment in the present case until its payment in full of the amount due, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

    Order the Board to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied upon in Case T-659/17, Vallina Fonseca v Single Resolution Board (OJ 2017 C 424, p. 42).

    Top