# C_2015366EN.01001101.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/11

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of De Nederlandsche Bank NV v the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF)

(Case E-9/15)

(2015/C 366/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 13 April 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of De Nederlandsche Bank NV v the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF) on the following questions:

| 1. | Is it compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement, and in particular with Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, in the event of a systemic crisis, that the obligations of a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme should be restricted to its assets at the time when deposits become unavailable in the sense defined in Article 1(3) of the Directive and the assets are not sufficient to meet the claims of each depositor for up to EUR 20 000? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement, and in particular with Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, in the event of a systemic crisis, that the obligations of a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme should be restricted to its assets at the time when deposits become unavailable in the sense defined in Article 1(3) of the Directive and the assets are not sufficient to meet the claims of each depositor for up to EUR 20 000?

| 2. | Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes that following a systemic crisis, a Member State enacts legislation or issues regulatory acts authorising a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme to establish a new department or account for the collection of premiums and to decide that those premiums are to be channelled into the new department or account for the purpose of building up a fund intended exclusively to meet possible future shocks and not to be available for the payment of earlier obligations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes that following a systemic crisis, a Member State enacts legislation or issues regulatory acts authorising a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme to establish a new department or account for the collection of premiums and to decide that those premiums are to be channelled into the new department or account for the purpose of building up a fund intended exclusively to meet possible future shocks and not to be available for the payment of earlier obligations?

| 3. | Is it compatible with Article 11 of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, that a national deposit guarantee scheme (i.e. the TIF), which makes payments under guarantee, acquires rights in excess of its right of subrogation of depositors’ claims in liquidation proceedings for an amount equal to its payments from the fund? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it compatible with Article 11 of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, that a national deposit guarantee scheme (i.e. the TIF), which makes payments under guarantee, acquires rights in excess of its right of subrogation of depositors’ claims in liquidation proceedings for an amount equal to its payments from the fund?

---