# C_2013029EN.01000601.xml

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 September 2012

in Case E-18/11

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf.

(Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation)

2013/C 29/07

In Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court) concerning the interpretation of Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | In the case of discrepancy between different language versions, the version which reflects the purpose and the general scheme of the rules provided for by the Directive, as well as the general principles of EEA law must be deemed to express the meaning of an EEA law provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of discrepancy between different language versions, the version which reflects the purpose and the general scheme of the rules provided for by the Directive, as well as the general principles of EEA law must be deemed to express the meaning of an EEA law provision.

| 2. | Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions precludes a rule of national law which, following the publication of an invitation to lodge claims directed towards known creditors who have their domicile, permanent residence or head offices in other EEA States, allows for the cancellation of claims that have not been lodged even if these creditors have not been individually notified and the national legislation requires the lodgement of the claim with a view to its recognition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions precludes a rule of national law which, following the publication of an invitation to lodge claims directed towards known creditors who have their domicile, permanent residence or head offices in other EEA States, allows for the cancellation of claims that have not been lodged even if these creditors have not been individually notified and the national legislation requires the lodgement of the claim with a view to its recognition.

| 3. | While the EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law, the national court is obliged, as far as possible, to ensure the result sought by the directive at issue through the conform interpretation of the national law with the EEA law provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

While the EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law, the national court is obliged, as far as possible, to ensure the result sought by the directive at issue through the conform interpretation of the national law with the EEA law provision.

---