Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017TN0700

    Case T-700/17: Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Traviacar and Others v SRB

    IO C 5, 8.1.2018, p. 48–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    05/10/2017
    Date lodged:
    05/10/2017
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Spáinnis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    8.1.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 5/48

    Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Traviacar and Others v SRB

    (Case T-700/17)

    (2018/C 005/65)

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicants: Traviacar, S.L. (O Carballiño, Spain) and 96 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

    Defendant: Single Resolution Board

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the General Court should:

    —

    Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

    —

    Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

    —

    Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

    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.

    Top