Case C-302/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 July 2020 — A. — Other party: Autorité des marchés financiers
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disclosure of information, insider trading, issue of securities, press, price of securities, takeover bid








C_2020313EN.01001401.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 July 2020 — A. — Other party: Autorité des marchés financiers
(Case C-302/20)
(2020/C 313/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.

Other party: Autorité des marchés financiers

Questions referred







1.


In the first place,






(a)


Is the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), (1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that information relating to the forthcoming publication of a press article relaying a market rumour about an issuer of financial instruments can satisfy the requirement of precision laid down in those articles for classification as inside information?










(b)


Does the fact that the press article, the forthcoming publication of which constitutes the information at issue, mentions — as a market rumour — the price of a public takeover bid affect the assessment of the precise nature of the information at issue?










(c)


Are the reputation of the journalist who authored the article and of the media outlet which published it and the genuinely significant (‘ex post’) effect of that publication on the price of the securities to which the published article relates relevant factors for the purposes of assessing the precise nature of the information at issue?














2.


In the second place, if the first question is answered to the effect that information such as that at issue can satisfy the necessary requirement of precision:






(a)


Is Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC (3) to be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure by a journalist, to one of his usual sources, of information relating to the forthcoming publication of an article authored by him relaying a market rumour is made ‘for the purpose of journalism’?










(b)


Is the answer to that question dependent on, inter alia, whether or not the journalist was informed of the market rumour by that source or whether or not the disclosure of the information on the forthcoming publication of the article was expedient in order to obtain clarifications from that source with regard to the credibility of the rumour?














3.


In the third place, are Articles 10 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 to be interpreted as meaning that, even where inside information is disclosed by a journalist ‘for the purpose of journalism’ within the meaning of Article 21, the lawful or unlawful nature of the disclosure requires an assessment of whether the disclosure was made ‘in the normal exercise of … [the] profession [of journalist]’ for the purposes of Article 10?










4.


In the fourth place, is Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to occur in the normal exercise of the profession of journalist, the disclosure of inside information must be strictly necessary for the exercise of that profession and must comply with the principle of proportionality?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16.

(2)  OJ 2003 L 339, p. 70.

(3)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 1.