# C_2020230EN.01000401.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesa — Latvia) — ‘PrivatBank’ AS

(Case C-480/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Material and personal scope - Payment services provided in a currency other than the euro or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area - Payment services provided by a credit institution - Non-execution or defective execution of a payment order - Person liable - Prudential supervision procedure - Complaint procedures - Out-of-court-redress - Competent authorities)

(2020/C 230/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘PrivatBank’ AS

Intervener: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(2) of 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, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the authority referred to in Article 82 of that directive has the power to examine complaints and impose penalties in the case of payment services provided in the currency of a third State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(2) of 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, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which the authority referred to in Article 82 of that directive has the power to examine complaints and impose penalties in the case of payment services provided in the currency of a third State;

| 2. | Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, are not applicable ratione personae to credit institutions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, are not applicable ratione personae to credit institutions;

| 3. | Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, must be interpreted as not conferring power on the competent authority, for the purposes of those provisions, to resolve, by applying the criteria established in Article 75 of that directive, disputes between users and providers of payment services arising from non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction, where that authority exercises its powers to assess complaints lodged by payment services users and to impose penalties on payment service providers in the event of infringement of the applicable provisions. Such disputes must be resolved through the out-of-court redress procedures referred to in Article 83 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, without prejudice to the right to bring proceedings before a court in accordance with national procedural law. If the national legislature opted to concentrate the powers conferred in Articles 80 to 82 and those conferred in Article 83 of the directive in the hands of the same authority, that authority must exercise each of those powers independently, applying only the relevant respective procedures; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, must be interpreted as not conferring power on the competent authority, for the purposes of those provisions, to resolve, by applying the criteria established in Article 75 of that directive, disputes between users and providers of payment services arising from non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction, where that authority exercises its powers to assess complaints lodged by payment services users and to impose penalties on payment service providers in the event of infringement of the applicable provisions. Such disputes must be resolved through the out-of-court redress procedures referred to in Article 83 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, without prejudice to the right to bring proceedings before a court in accordance with national procedural law. If the national legislature opted to concentrate the powers conferred in Articles 80 to 82 and those conferred in Article 83 of the directive in the hands of the same authority, that authority must exercise each of those powers independently, applying only the relevant respective procedures;

| 4. | In accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, the national legislature may give the competent authority, in the complaints and penalty procedures referred to in Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, the power to take into account the existence and contents of an arbitration ruling settling a dispute between a user and provider of payment services concerned by those procedures, provided that the probative value given to that ruling in those procedures is not liable to undermine the purpose or specific objectives of the procedures, the rights of defence of the persons concerned or the independent exercise of the powers and competencies conferred on that authority, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, the national legislature may give the competent authority, in the complaints and penalty procedures referred to in Articles 80 to 82 of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, the power to take into account the existence and contents of an arbitration ruling settling a dispute between a user and provider of payment services concerned by those procedures, provided that the probative value given to that ruling in those procedures is not liable to undermine the purpose or specific objectives of the procedures, the rights of defence of the persons concerned or the independent exercise of the powers and competencies conferred on that authority, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---