This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0686
Case T-686/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB
Case T-686/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB
Case T-686/17: Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB
IO C 424, 11.12.2017, pp. 50–51
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.12.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 424/50 |
Action brought on 4 October 2017 — Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros and Medicina Asturiana v SRB
(Case T-686/17)
(2017/C 424/74)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicants: Policlínico Centro Médico de Seguros, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Medicina Asturiana, SA (Oviedo) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)
Defendant: Single Resolution Board
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should:
|
— |
Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived them of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities they owned; |
|
— |
Order the Board to pay to the applicants EUR 1 850 000 and the bonds’ unpaid interest accrued up to the date of repayment as compensation for the harm suffered (‘the amount due’); |
|
— |
Increase the amount due with compensatory interest as of 7 June 2017 until delivery of the judgment disposing of the present case; |
|
— |
Increase the amount due with corresponding default interest as of the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points. |
|
— |
Order the SRB to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-659/17 Vallina Fonseca v SRB.