Case C-686/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 November 2018 — OC and Others v Banca d’Italia and Others
Date: 2018-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cooperative bank, law of banking, ownership, protection of shareholders, public limited company, share capital, shareholder








C_2019035EN.01001001.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 5 November 2018 — OC and Others v Banca d’Italia and Others
(Case C-686/18)
(2019/C 35/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: OC and Others, Adusbef, Federconsumatori, PB and Others, QA and Others

Defendants: Banca d’Italia, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 [, on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms], (1) Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014, (2) and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with reference to Article 6(4) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013, (3) preclude a national provision such as that introduced by Article 1 of Decree-Law No 3/2015, converted, with amendments, by Law No 33/2015 (and currently also Article 1(15) of Legislative Decree No 72/2015, which has replaced Article 28(2-ter), [Consolidated Banking Law], substantially reproducing the text of Article 1(1)(a) of Decree-Law No 3/2015, as converted, with amendments that are not relevant to the present case), which imposes an asset threshold above which a people’s bank must be converted into a company limited by shares, setting that limit at EUR 8 billion of assets? Furthermore, do the abovementioned unified European parameters preclude a national provision which, if a people’s bank is converted into a company limited by shares, makes it possible for that company to defer or limit, including for an indefinite period, redemption of the shares held by the withdrawing shareholder?










2.


Do Articles 3 and 63 et seq. TFEU, on competition in the internal market and free movement of capital, preclude a national provision such as that introduced by Article 1 of Decree-Law No 3/2015 (converted, with amendments, by Law No 33/2015), which limits the exercise of cooperative banking activities within a given asset limit, requiring the bank concerned to be converted into a company limited by shares if it should exceed that limit?










3.


Do Article 107 et seq. TFEU on State aid preclude a national provision such as that introduced by Article 1 of Decree-Law No 3/2015, converted, with amendments, by Law No 33/2015 (and currently also Article 1(15) of Legislative Decree No 72/2015, which has replaced Article 28(2-ter), [Consolidated Banking Law], substantially reproducing the text of Article 1(1)(a) of Decree-Law No 3/2015, as converted, with amendments that are not relevant to the present case), which requires a people’s bank to be converted into a company limited by shares if it exceeds a certain asset threshold (set at EUR 8 billion), establishing restrictions on the redemption of the shares held by the shareholder in the event of withdrawal, to avoid the possible liquidation of the converted bank?










4.


Do the combined provisions of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and Article 10 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 preclude a national provision such as that introduced by Article 1 of Decree-Law No 3/2015 (converted, with amendments, by Law No 33/2015), as interpreted by the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) in Judgment No 99/2018, which permits a people’s bank to defer redemption for an unlimited period and to limit the associated amount in full or in part?










5.


Where, in its interpretation, the Court of Justice holds that the European legislation is compatible with the interpretation asserted by the opposing parties, can the Court of Justice assess the lawfulness, in European terms, of Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014, in the light of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (whereby: ‘Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest’), supplemented, also in the light of Article 52(3) of that Charter (whereby: ‘In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection’) and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 241/2014 of 7 January 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for Own Funds requirements for institutions (OJ 2014 L 74, p. 8).

(3)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).