Case C-140/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
Date: 2013-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, confidentiality, financial institution, financial services, interpretation of the law








C_2013156EN.01002202.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
(Case C-140/13)
2013/C 156/35
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Annett Altmann and Others

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

Questions referred







1.


Is it compatible with European Union law for mandatory obligations of secrecy which are incumbent on the national authorities responsible for supervising financial services undertakings and which are based on relevant acts of European Union law (in this case, Directive 2004/109/EC, (1) Directive 2006/48/EC (2) and Directive 2009/65/EC (3)) and have been transposed accordingly into national law, as in the Federal Republic of Germany by Paragraph 9 of the Kreditwesengesetz (Law on the Activities of Credit Institutions) and Paragraph 8 of the Wertpapierhandelsgesetz (Law on Securities Trading), to be capable of being breached by the application and interpretation of a provision of national procedural law such as Paragraph 99 of the VwGO?










2.


Can a supervisory authority such as the German Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Federal Office for the Supervision of Financial Services) rely, as against a person who has applied to it under the German national Law on Freedom of Information for access to information concerning a particular financial services provider, on obligations of secrecy incumbent upon it inter alia under European Union law, as laid down in Paragraph 9 of the Kreditwesengesetz and Paragraph 8 of the Wertpapierhandelsgesetz, even in circumstances where the essential business concept of the company which offered financial services but has since been dissolved on grounds of insolvency and is in liquidation consisted in large-scale investment fraud and the wilful harming of investors’ interests and the responsible executives of the company have been sentenced by final judgment to terms of several years’ imprisonment?






(1)  Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ 2004 L 390, p. 38).

(2)  Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2006 L 177, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32).