# C_2013367EN.01000602.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

(Case C-85/12) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions - Directive 2001/24/EC - Articles 3, 9 and 32 - National legislative act conferring on reorganisation measures the effects of winding-up proceedings - Legislative measure prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium)

2013/C 367/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf

Applicant:

Defendants: Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Articles 3, 9 and 32 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 (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15) — Authorities authorised to adopt reorganisation and winding up measures for credit institutions — Administrative or judicial authorities — Permissibility of measures stemming directly from a law of a Member State of the EEA — Law applicable to proceedings concerning assets of a credit institution situated in a Member State — Effects on the application, in a Member State, of a legislative measure of another Member State, prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium, in the case of interim protective measures adopted prior to the declaration of the moratorium

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 3 and 9 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 must be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial institution, such as those based on the transitional provisions in point II of Law No 44/2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by an administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles of Directive 2001/24, where those transitional provisions take effect only by means of judicial decisions granting a moratorium to a credit institution. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 3 and 9 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 must be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial institution, such as those based on the transitional provisions in point II of Law No 44/2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by an administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles of Directive 2001/24, where those transitional provisions take effect only by means of judicial decisions granting a moratorium to a credit institution.

| 2. | Article 32 of Directive 2001/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, as Article 98 of Law No 161/2002 on financial institutions, as amended by Law No 129/2008 of 13 November 2008, which prohibited or suspended any legal action against a financial institution once it benefitted from a moratorium, from being effective in regard to interim protective measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in another Member State before the declaration of the moratorium. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 32 of Directive 2001/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, as Article 98 of Law No 161/2002 on financial institutions, as amended by Law No 129/2008 of 13 November 2008, which prohibited or suspended any legal action against a financial institution once it benefitted from a moratorium, from being effective in regard to interim protective measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in another Member State before the declaration of the moratorium.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1

---