Case C-222/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 16 May 2002 in the case of 1. Peter Paul, 2.-4. …, 5. Cornelia Sonnen-Lütte, 6.-10. …, 11. Christel Mörkens against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Minister for Finance
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, credit guarantee, credit institution, interpretation of the law, management audit

24.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 202/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-
richtshof by order of that Court of 16 May 2002 in the
case of 1. Peter Paul, 2.-4. ..., 5. Cornelia Sonnen-Lütte,
6.-10. ..., 11. Christel Mörkens against Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by the Federal Minister for Finance

(Case C-222/02)

(2002/C 202/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 16 May 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 17 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of 1. Peter Paul, 2.-4. ..., 5. Cornelia Sonnen-Lütte,
6.-10.
..., 11. Christel Mörkens against Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by the Federal Minister for Finance on
the following questions:

1. Do the provisions of Articles 3 and 7 of 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) confer on the depositor, in the event of his
deposit being unavailable, in addition to the right to be
compensated by a deposit-guarantee scheme up to the
amount specified in Article 7(1), the more far-reaching
right to require that the competent authorities avail
themselves of the measures mentioned in Article 3(2) to
institution’s
(5) and,
authorisation?

if necessary, revoke the credit

In so far as such a right is conferred on the depositor,
does that also include the right to claim compensation for
damage resulting from the misconduct of the competent
authorities, beyond the amount specified in Article 7(1)
of the directive?

2. Do the provisions, as listed below, of directives harmonis-
ing the law on the prudential supervision of banks —
either individually or in combination and, if so, from
what date onwards — confer on the saver and investor
rights to the effect that the competent authorities of
the Member States must take prudential supervisory
measures, with they are charged by those directives, in
the interests of that category of persons and must incur
liability for any misconduct, or does Directive 94/19/EC
on deposit-guarantee schemes contain an exhaustive set
of special provisions for all cases of unavailability of
deposits?

— First Council Directive 77/780/EEC of 12 December
1977 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the taking up
and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (OJ
1977 L 322, p. 30): Article 6(1), fourth and 12th
recitals in the preamble;

— Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 Decem-
ber 1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the taking
up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions
and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ 1989
L 386, p. 1): Articles 3, 4 to 7, 10 to 17, 11th recital
in the preamble;

— Council Directive 89/299/EEC of 17 April 1989 on
the own funds of credit institutions (OJ 1989 L 124,
p. 16): Article 7 in conjunction with Articles 2 to 6;

— European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/
EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 168, p. 7): recital
15 in the preamble.

Do Council Directives

— 92/30/EEC of 6 April 1992 on the supervision of
credit institutions on a consolidated basis (OJ 1992
L 110, p. 52): 11th recital in the preamble;

— 93/6/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the capital adequacy
of investment firms and credit institutions (OJ 1993
L 141, p. 1): eighth recital in the preamble;

— 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services
in the securities field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27): second,
fifth, 29th, 32nd, 41st and 42nd recitals;

provide assistance with interpretation for the purpose of
answering the above question, regardless of whether they
otherwise contain law applicable in the present case?

3.

Should the Court find that all or any one of the directives
cited above confer(s) on savers or investors the right to
require the competent authorities to avail themselves of
prudential supervisory measures in their interest, the
following further questions are submitted:

Does a right for a saver or investor to have prudential
supervisory measures taken in his interest in proceedings
brought against the Member State concerned have direct
effect in the sense that the national rules which preclude
such a right must be disregarded,

or does a Member State which has failed to respect that
right of savers or investors when transposing directives
incur liability only in accordance with the principles
governing claims for damages against the State under
Community law?

In the latter case, has the Member State committed a
sufficiently serious breach of Community law where it
has failed to recognise that a right to have prudential
supervisory measures taken is conferred?