CELEX: 62017CN0639
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-639/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 15 November 2017 — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, likvidējamās AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ administratore v kip

12.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/17
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 15 November 2017 — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, likvidējamās AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ administratore v kip
   (Case C-639/17)
   (2018/C 052/23)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Augstākā tiesa
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, likvidējamās AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ administratore
   
      Other party to the appeal in cassation: SIA ‘Ķipars AI’
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               (1)
            
            
               Does the term ‘transfer order’, for the purposes of Directive 98/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC, (2) include a payment order given by a depositor to a credit institution for the transfer of funds to another credit institution?
            
         
               (2)
            
            
               If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 3(1) of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC, which provides that ‘transfer orders and netting shall be legally enforceable and binding on third parties even in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant, provided that transfer orders were entered into the system before the moment of opening of such insolvency proceedings as defined in Article 6(1). This shall apply even in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant (in the system concerned or in an interoperable system) or against the system operator of an interoperable system which is not a participant’, be interpreted as meaning that an order such as that in the present case could be regarded as ‘entered into the system’ and had to be executed?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1998, L 166, p. 45.
   
      (2)  OJ 2009, L 146, p. 37.