Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/21 |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Nova Kreditna banka Maribor, d.d. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-215/17)

(2017/C 213/28)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nova Kreditna banka Maribor, d.d.

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | In the light of an approach based on minimum harmonisation, must Article 1(2)(c), third indent, of Directive 2003/98, as amended by Directive 2013/37 (consolidated version), be interpreted as meaning that national legislation may permit unrestricted (absolute) access to all information in copyright and consultancy contracts, even when the information is categorised as a business secret, and the legislation at issue stipulates this solely in relation to institutions under dominant State influence, but not also for other entities subject to the obligation; and is the interpretation also influenced by Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 in relation to the provisions on the disclosure of information, particularly in the sense that access to public sector information within the meaning of Directive 2003/98 may not be more extensive than is provided for by the uniform rules on the disclosure of information laid down by the regulation? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Must Regulation No 575/2013, viewed in terms of the rules on disclosure of information on the commercial activity of banks, and more specifically Articles 446 and 432(2) in Part Eight thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the latter provisions preclude legislation of a Member State which compels a bank that is, or was, under the dominant influence of a public-law entity, to disclose information on contracts provided for consultancy and legal services and services of an intellectual nature, and more specifically information concerning the type of transaction concluded, the contractual partner (in the case of a legal person: the corporate or business name, registered office and business address), the value of the contract, the amount of the individual payments for the abovementioned services, the date on which the contract was concluded, the duration of the business relationship and similar information contained in the annexes to the contract — all information that came into existence during the period of dominant influence — without providing for any exception to that requirement, and with no possibility of balancing the public interest in accessing the data against the bank’s interest in safeguarding its business secrets, in circumstances in which there are no cross-border elements? |

---

[Top](#document1)