Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:242
Date: 2014-04-09
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 April 2014 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Questions bearing no relation to the subject matter of the case in the main proceedings (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Approximation of laws — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64 — Article 52(3) — Right of the payee to request from the payer charges for the use of a payment instrument — Application of that provision to the contractual relationship between a mobile phone operator and its client (European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/64, Art. 52(3)) 3. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as a reference point 4. Approximation of laws — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64 — Concept of payment instrument — Transfer order form bearing the handwritten signature of the payer and online transfer order — Included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/64, Art. 4, para. 23) 5. Approximation of laws — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64 — Article 52(3) — Right of the payee to request from the payer charges for the use of a payment instrument — Power conferred on Member States — General prohibition of payees levying charges on the payers for the use of any payment instrument — Lawfulness — Conditions — Assessment to be made by the national court (European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/64, Art. 52(3)) 6. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation — Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation — Retroactive effect — Limits — Financial consequences of the judgment — Consequences not justifying the temporal restriction of the effects (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 20) 2. It is apparent from the very wording of Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64 on payment services in the internal market, which governs the right of a payee to request from the payer a charge for the use of a given payment instrument, that that provision concerns the relationship between ‘the payee’ and ‘the payer’. It follows that that provision applies to the use of a payment instrument in the course of the contractual relationship between a mobile phone operator, as payee, and that operator’s customer, as payer, (see paras 26, 28, operative part 1) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 32) 4. Article 4.23 of Directive 2007/64 on payment services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that both the procedure for ordering transfers by means of a transfer order form signed by the payer in person and the procedure for ordering transfers through online banking constitute payment instruments within the meaning of that provision. Both the ordering of a transfer by transfer order form signed by the payer in person and the ordering of transfers through online banking represent a set of procedures agreed between the user and the payment service provider and used by the user in order to initiate a payment order. (see paras 38, 41, 44, operative part 2) 5. Article 52(3) of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that it gives Member States the power to prohibit generally payees from levying charges on the payer for the use of any payment instrument, if the national legislation, as a whole, takes into account the need to encourage competition and the use of efficient payment instruments, which is for the referring court to ascertain. It is apparent from the very wording of that provision that the power given to Member States to prohibit payees from levying charges for the use of a payment instrument may be implemented with respect to some or all of the payment instruments used in their territory and is not limited to the use of a given payment instrument. (see paras 46, 48, operative part 3) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 50, 51, 53, 54)