Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:475
Date: 2017-06-15
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Free movement of capital;Internal market - Principles;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Lithuania

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas (Case C-109/16) Language of the case: Lithuanian Referring court Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas Parties to the main proceedings Appellant in cassation: VĮ Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas Other party to the proceedings in cassation: Alvydas Raišelis Questions referred In cases where a credit institution operates as an investment firm to which funds have been transferred for the acquisition of debt securities issued by the same credit institution, but the securities issue does not become effective and the securities are not transferred to the ownership of the person who has paid the funds, while the funds have already been debited from that person’s bank account and transferred to an account opened in the name of the credit institution and are not repayable, and the national legislative intent in such a case is not clear with regard to the application of a specific protection scheme, can Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive 1 and Article 1(4) of the Investor Directive 2 be applied directly in order to determine the applicable coverage scheme, and is the intended use of the funds the decisive criterion for that purpose? Do those provisions of the directives display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that they may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover? Should Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the investor compensation scheme, be understood and interpreted as also covering claims for repayment of funds that an investment firm owes to investors and that are not held in the name of the investors? If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the compensation scheme, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that that provision may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover? Should Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive be understood and interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘deposit’ under that directive also includes funds transferred from a personal account, with the person’s consent, to an account opened in the name of a credit institution which is held at the same credit institution and is intended to pay for the future debt securities issue of that institution? Are Articles 7(1) and 8(3) of the Deposit Directive, taken together, to be understood as meaning that a deposit insurance payment up to the amount specified in Article 7(1) must be made to every person whose claim can be established before the date on which the determination or ruling referred to in Article 1.3(i) and (ii) of the Deposit Directive has been made? ____________ 1 Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5). 2 Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22).