Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021 in Case E-14/20 Liti-Link AG v LGT Bank AG (Directive 2004/39/EC – Directive 2006/73/EC – Notion of ‘essential terms’ – Sufficient disclosure of information to clients – Notion of ‘summary form’ – Admissibility) 2021/C 426/04
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, bank charges, consumer information, direct applicability, disclosure of information, financial legislation, financial services, investment company, national implementing measure








C_2021426EN.01000601.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/6






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 15 July 2021
in Case E-14/20
Liti-Link AG v LGT Bank AG


(Directive 2004/39/EC – Directive 2006/73/EC – Notion of ‘essential terms’ – Sufficient disclosure of information to clients – Notion of ‘summary form’ – Admissibility)


(2021/C 426/04)
In Case E-14/20, Liti-Link AG v LGT Bank AG – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof) concerning the interpretation of Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The final paragraph of Article 26 of Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an investment firm may disclose the essential terms of the arrangements relating to the fee, commission or non-monetary benefit in summary form provided that the investment firm has clearly disclosed to the client prior to the provision of an investment or ancillary service that such inducements are paid to or received from a third party; has undertaken to disclose further details at the client’s request; and honours this undertaking.
Disclosure in accordance with Article 26 in summary form may be made in general or pre-formulated terms and conditions provided that each individual client receives the information related to the specific investment service and that the information gives the client a sufficient basis on which to make informed investment decisions.










2.


A disclosure in accordance with the final paragraph of Article 26 of Directive 2006/73/EC entails an obligation on the investment firm to indicate clearly whether and when a fee, commission or non-monetary benefit is provided in a manner that is comprehensive, accurate and understandable, prior to the provision of the relevant investment or ancillary service. A generic disclosure which merely refers to the possibility that an investment firm might receive a fee, commission or non-monetary benefit from a third party is not sufficient for the purposes of Article 26 of that directive.










3.


If the amount of the fees or commissions cannot be ascertained, a correct disclosure in accordance with point (b)(i) of the first paragraph of Article 26 of Directive 2006/73/EC must place the client in a position to calculate the amount of the fees or commissions provided to the investment firm by a third party so that the client is enabled to make an informed decision on an investment.










4.


The conditions laid down in the final paragraph of Article 26 of Directive 2006/73/EC for a disclosure of fees, commissions or non-monetary benefits in summary form are not fulfilled if the investment firm undertakes to disclose to the client further details merely for a period of twelve months preceding the request.










5.


EEA law does not require any direct effect of EEA law provisions not correctly transposed into national law. The national court is nevertheless obliged, as far as possible, to ensure the result sought by EEA law through the interpretation of national law in conformity with EEA law.