# C_2017161EN.01001101.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB Aviabaltika v BAB Ūkio bankas

(Case C-107/17)

(2017/C 161/14)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: UAB Aviabaltika

Appellant in cassation:

Other party in the appeal in cassation: BAB Ūkio bankas

Other party in the appeal in cassation:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 (1) be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Member States to establish legal rules which provide that financial collateral is not included in the assets remaining after the insolvency of the collateral taker (a bank in the process of being wound up)? In other words, are Member States obliged to establish legal rules which require that a collateral taker (a bank) should be de facto able to obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), despite the fact that the enforcement event occurred after the commencement of the proceedings for the winding-up of the collateral taker (the bank)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 (1) be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Member States to establish legal rules which provide that financial collateral is not included in the assets remaining after the insolvency of the collateral taker (a bank in the process of being wound up)? In other words, are Member States obliged to establish legal rules which require that a collateral taker (a bank) should be de facto able to obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), despite the fact that the enforcement event occurred after the commencement of the proceedings for the winding-up of the collateral taker (the bank)?

1

de facto

| 2. | Should Article 4(1) and 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 be systematically interpreted as conferring on the collateral provider the right to demand that the collateral taker (the bank) should primarily obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), by using the financial collateral, and accordingly as imposing an obligation on the financial collateral taker to give effect to such a demand despite the commencement of proceedings for its winding-up? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 4(1) and 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 be systematically interpreted as conferring on the collateral provider the right to demand that the collateral taker (the bank) should primarily obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), by using the financial collateral, and accordingly as imposing an obligation on the financial collateral taker to give effect to such a demand despite the commencement of proceedings for its winding-up?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the negative, and the collateral provider satisfies the claim of the collateral taker, which is secured by the financial collateral, by using other assets of the collateral provider, should the provisions of Directive 2002/47, in particular Articles 4 and 8 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the collateral provider should also have applied to it an exemption from equal treatment of the collateral taker’s (the bank’s) creditors in winding-up proceedings and that the collateral provider should, in order to recover the financial collateral, be granted priority over other creditors in winding-up proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the negative, and the collateral provider satisfies the claim of the collateral taker, which is secured by the financial collateral, by using other assets of the collateral provider, should the provisions of Directive 2002/47, in particular Articles 4 and 8 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the collateral provider should also have applied to it an exemption from equal treatment of the collateral taker’s (the bank’s) creditors in winding-up proceedings and that the collateral provider should, in order to recover the financial collateral, be granted priority over other creditors in winding-up proceedings?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43.

1

---