# C_2016270EN.01003301.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 30 May 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

(Case C-304/16)

(2016/C 270/37)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: American Express Co.

Applicant:

Defendant: The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, Diners Club International Limited, MasterCard Europe S.A.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the requirement in Articles 1(5) and 2(18) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 (1) (‘the IFR’) that a three party payment card scheme issuing card-based payment instruments with a co-branding partner or through an agent, is considered to be a four party payment card scheme, apply only to the extent that the co-branding partner or agent acts as the ‘issuer’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) and recital (29) of the IFR (namely where that partner or agent has a contractual relationship with the payer, pursuant to which it contracts to provide the payer with a payment instrument to initiate and process the payer's card-based payment transactions)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the requirement in Articles 1(5) and 2(18) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 (1) (‘the IFR’) that a three party payment card scheme issuing card-based payment instruments with a co-branding partner or through an agent, is considered to be a four party payment card scheme, apply only to the extent that the co-branding partner or agent acts as the ‘issuer’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) and recital (29) of the IFR (namely where that partner or agent has a contractual relationship with the payer, pursuant to which it contracts to provide the payer with a payment instrument to initiate and process the payer's card-based payment transactions)?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question (l) is ‘no’, are Articles 1(5) and 2(18) of the IFR invalid in so far as they provide that such arrangements are considered to be four party payment card schemes, on the grounds of:






  (a) | failure to provide reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question (l) is ‘no’, are Articles 1(5) and 2(18) of the IFR invalid in so far as they provide that such arrangements are considered to be four party payment card schemes, on the grounds of:

(a)

failure to provide reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU;

| (b) | manifest error of assessment; and/or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

manifest error of assessment; and/or

| (c) | breach of the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

breach of the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/751 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions.

1

OJ L 123, p. 1

---