Case C-671/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — in the proceedings brought by ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC — Deposit-guarantee schemes and investor-compensation schemes — Savings and investment instruments — Financial instrument within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC — Exclusion of the guarantee — Direct effect — Conditions to be met in order to benefit from Directive 97/9/EC)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, claim, credit institution, direct applicability, financial instrument, indemnification, insurance, investment protection, securities








C_2015279EN.01001001.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/10






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — in the proceedings brought by ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas
(Case C-671/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC - Deposit-guarantee schemes and investor-compensation schemes - Savings and investment instruments - Financial instrument within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC - Exclusion of the guarantee - Direct effect - Conditions to be met in order to benefit from Directive 97/9/EC))
(2015/C 279/11)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


            ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas

Other interested parties: Vitoldas Guliavičius, bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, and point 12 of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee provided for by that directive certificates of deposit issued by a credit institution if those certificates are negotiable, a matter which it falls to the referring court to determine, there being no need for it to satisfy itself that those certificates have all the characteristics of a financial instrument within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.










2.


Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, and Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes must be interpreted as meaning that when claims against a credit institution are such as to be encompassed by both the concept of ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Directive 94/19 and that of ‘instrument’ within the meaning of Directive 97/9, and the national legislature has made use of the option provided for in point 12 of Annex I to Directive 94/19 to exclude those claims from the protection scheme provided for by Directive 94/19, such an exclusion cannot result in those claims also being excluded from the protection scheme provided for by Directive 97/9, other than under the conditions mentioned in Article 4(2) of that directive.










3.


Articles 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes entitlement to compensation under the scheme provided for by that directive conditional upon the credit institution concerned having transferred or used the funds or securities in question without the investor’s consent.










4.


Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that the referring court, provided that it considers that in the disputes before it Directive 97/9 is invoked against a body that meets the conditions for the provisions of that directive to be relied on, is required to refrain from applying a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes entitlement to compensation under the scheme provided for by that directive conditional upon the credit institution concerned having transferred or used the funds or securities in question without the investor’s consent.






(1)  
            OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.