14

In those circumstances, the Okrazhen sad Vidin (Regional Court, Vidin) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 63 TFEU, which governs the free movement of capital and payments, to be interpreted as covering the declaration of a set-off in a relationship with a banking institution where a commercial company which is a debtor of the bank discharges its liabilities by way of set-off against reciprocal claims against the same bank which are certain, of a fixed amount and due? (2) Is Article 63 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that an amendment of the conditions for the validity of set-offs already lawfully declared in a relationship between a commercial company and a banking institution, by which the set-offs declared are declared to be invalid on the basis of new conditions which apply retroactively to the set-offs already declared, constitutes a restriction within the meaning of Article 63(1) TFEU if it has the effect of restricting the possibility to discharge liabilities towards other companies in which persons from other Member States of the European Union hold share capital or stock or from which such persons hold bonds? (3) Is Article 63 TFEU to be interpreted as permitting national legislation which retroactively amends the conditions for the validity of set-offs already lawfully declared in a relationship between a commercial company and a banking institution and which declares the declared set-offs to be invalid on the basis of new conditions applied retroactively to the set-offs already invoked? (4) Are Article 4(2)(a) and Articles 26, 27, 114 and 115 TFEU, which govern the internal market of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, also in cases in which the legal relationships exist only between legal entities of the same nationality and can therefore be categorised as domestic legal relationships without a direct cross-border link to the internal market of the European Union, those provisions permit national legislation which retroactively amends the conditions for the validity of set-offs already lawfully declared in a relationship between a commercial company and a banking institution in a Member State by declaring the declared set-offs to be invalid on the basis of new conditions applied retroactively to the set-offs already invoked? (5) Is Article 2 TEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) thereof and the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as permitting the adoption of national legislation which amends the conditions under which set-offs can be validly declared in a relationship with a banking institution by expressly giving retroactive effect to the new conditions and declaring set-offs lawfully invoked in an earlier period to be invalid, while, in the Member State concerned, insolvency proceedings concerning the banking institution have been opened and court proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of set-offs invoked against the bank which were subject to different legal conditions at the time they were invoked are pending? (6) Is the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, to be interpreted as permitting national legislation which amends the conditions under which set-offs can be validly declared in a relationship with a banking institution by expressly giving retroactive effect to the new conditions and declaring set-offs lawfully invoked in an earlier period to be invalid, while, in the Member State concerned, insolvency proceedings concerning the banking institution have been opened and court proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of set-offs invoked against the bank which were subject to different legal conditions at the time they were invoked are pending?’