# C_2018381EN.01000502.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 July 2018 — AS ‘PrivatBank’

(Case C-480/18)

(2018/C 381/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AS ‘PrivatBank’

Other party to the proceedings: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Questions referred

| 1. | Is national legislation that empowers the [Latvian Financial and Capital Markets] Commission to examine complaints by payment service users even where the payment services have not been executed in euros or in the national currency of a Member State, and thus to find there to be infringements of the Law [on payment services and electronic money] and to impose penalties, compatible with Article 2(2) of Directive [2007/64/EC]? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is national legislation that empowers the [Latvian Financial and Capital Markets] Commission to examine complaints by payment service users even where the payment services have not been executed in euros or in the national currency of a Member State, and thus to find there to be infringements of the Law [on payment services and electronic money] and to impose penalties, compatible with Article 2(2) of Directive [2007/64/EC]? (1)

| 2. | Must Article 20(1) and (5) and Article 21(2) of the Directive be interpreted as allowing for the competent authority to supervise and impose penalties also in respect of payment services not executed in euros or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 20(1) and (5) and Article 21(2) of the Directive be interpreted as allowing for the competent authority to supervise and impose penalties also in respect of payment services not executed in euros or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area?

| 3. | For the purposes of the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive, or of the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, does the competent authority have the power to resolve disputes between a payer and a payment service provider arising from the legal relationships referred to in Article 75 of the Directive, determining who is liable for non-execution or defective execution of a transaction? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive, or of the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, does the competent authority have the power to resolve disputes between a payer and a payment service provider arising from the legal relationships referred to in Article 75 of the Directive, determining who is liable for non-execution or defective execution of a transaction?

| 4. | In carrying out the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive or the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, must the competent authority take account of an arbitral award made in settlement of a dispute between a payment service provider and a payment service user? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In carrying out the supervisory functions laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Directive or the complaint procedures established in Articles 80 to 82 of the Directive, must the competent authority take account of an arbitral award made in settlement of a dispute between a payment service provider and a payment service user?

---

(1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

---