Case C-773/24, A. bankas: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 11 November 2024 – A. v Lietuvos bankas
Date: 2024-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disclosure of information, insider trading, investment company, issue of securities, market prices, official market, provision of services, sale, share








C_202501076EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1076


24.2.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 11 November 2024 – A. v Lietuvos bankas


(Case C-773/24, A. bankas)

(C/2025/1076)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A.

Respondent: Lietuvos bankas

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 9(2)(b) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the execution by an investment firm of an order to dispose of securities (shares) on the regulated market, placed by a client on the basis of a standard services agreement, may (not) be regarded as exceeding the normal course of the exercise of its duties merely because (i) it provides services to that client on the basis of another agreement in connection with the disposal of those securities (shares) outside the regulated market, and (ii) it is, as a result, in possession of inside information about the client’s intentions (what the client has determined) with regard to the price of the securities (shares) to be disposed of outside the regulated market?










2.


Must Articles 8(1), 9(2)(b) and 14(a) of Regulation No 596/2014 be interpreted as meaning that the person referred to in Article 9(2)(b) of that regulation may (not) be found by the competent authority to have infringed the prohibition laid down in Article 14(a) thereof, where the person trades in securities on the basis of an agreement with a client for the sole purpose of executing that client’s order, irrespective of whether that client has placed that order on the basis of inside information within the meaning of Article 8(1) of that regulation?










3.


Must Article 9(6) of Regulation No 596/2014 be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the competent authority merely to rely on the presumption referred to in recital 24 of that regulation in order to establish that there was an illegitimate reason for the placing of an order by a client with an investment firm, as referred to in Article 9(2)(b) of that regulation, to dispose of securities (shares) on the regulated market, when ruling on whether the investment firm (the broker) has infringed Article 14(a) of that regulation?










4.


Must Article 8(1) of Regulation No 596/2014 be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions laid down therein may (not) be applied to trading in the shares of the issuer on the regulated market at market price by a person who has a holding in the capital of the issuer, merely because that person has already (freely) decided on a specific, but not yet publicly announced, price for the shares of the issuer to be disposed of in a process outside the regulated market, the commencement of which and the expected completion of which have been made public?










5.


Must recital 24, Article 8(1) and Article 14(a) of Regulation No 596/2014 be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of rebutting the presumption of market abuse under recital 24 of that regulation, (i) it is necessary for the person referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8(4) of that regulation, which has executed, on the basis of an agreement, an order from a client to dispose of part of its securities (shares) on the regulated market, to demonstrate that its client, when placing the order, did not carry out any of the acts referred to in Article 8(1) thereof, or (ii) it is sufficient for that person to demonstrate that it executed the client’s order for a reason other than being in possession of inside information?






(1)  
            OJ 2014 L 173, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1076/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)