- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-639/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ v SIA ‘Ķipars AI’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems — Directive 98/26/EC — Scope — Concept of ‘transfer order’ — Payment order sent by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution subsequently declared insolvent)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0639
62017CA0639
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
11.3.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 93/15
(Case C-639/17) (*)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems - Directive 98/26/EC - Scope - Concept of ‘transfer order’ - Payment order sent by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution subsequently declared insolvent))
(2019/C 93/19)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’
Respondent: SIA ‘Ķipars AI’
Operative part of the judgment
A payment order, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, given by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution for a transfer of funds to another credit institution is not covered by the concept of ‘transfer order’, within the meaning 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 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, and does not, therefore, come within the scope of that directive.
(*)
Language of the case: Latvian
ECLI:EU:C:2019:140
* * *
(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Language of the case: Latvian