Judgment of the Court of 9 August 2024 in Case E-10/23 – X v Finanzmarktaufsicht (Directive 2013/36/EU – Article 53 – Obligation of professional secrecy – Effective judicial protection – Surveillance and Court Agreement – Article 34 SCA – Jurisdiction in advisory opinion cases)
Date: 2024-08-09
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, auditing, banking supervision, confidentiality, credit institution, disclosure of information, financial supervision, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), professional secret








C_202407114EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7114


28.11.2024







            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         
of 9 August 2024
         
in Case E-10/23
X v Finanzmarktaufsicht


(Directive 2013/36/EU – Article 53 – Obligation of professional secrecy – Effective judicial protection – Surveillance and Court Agreement – Article 34 SCA – Jurisdiction in advisory opinion cases)


(C/2024/7114)

In Case E-10/23, X v Finanzmarktaufsicht – 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 Board of Appeals of the Financial Market Authority (Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht), concerning the interpretation of Article 53 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Bernd Hammermann and Michael Reiertsen (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 August 2024, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The Court is competent to give an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice in accordance with Article 34 of that agreement.










2.


A national court or tribunal is permitted under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice to request an advisory opinion from the Court, although a legal question, which is the subject of the request for an advisory opinion, has already been answered in an earlier set of proceedings by a higher-ranking national court with binding effect in accordance with national procedural law.










3.


Article 53(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms must be interpreted as meaning that all information held by the competent authorities (i) which is not public and (ii) the disclosure of which is likely to affect adversely the interests of the natural or legal person who provided that information or of third parties, or the proper functioning of the system for monitoring the activities of credit institutions and investment firms, is to be classified as confidential information that is covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.










4.


Article 53 of Directive 2013/36/EU lists exhaustively the specific cases where, exceptionally, that general prohibition does not preclude their communication or use. The protection of the confidentiality of the information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy in Article 53(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU must, however, be guaranteed and implemented in such a way as to reconcile it with general principles of EEA law, including the principle of effective judicial protection, the rights of the defence and the protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by public authorities in the sphere of private activities.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7114/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)