Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4138

(Case C-274/25, Alternative Payments)

(C/2025/4138)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant: Alternative Payments UAB

Defendant at first instance and respondent: Lietuvos bankas

Questions referred

Are point 2 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 and point 23 of Article 4, paragraphs 3(a) and 4(a) of Annex I to Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that only the payment service provider of the payer is to be regarded as the provider of the direct debit service, or is the service provided by the payment service provider of both the payer and the payee?

Are point 2 of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 260/2012 and point 23 of Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, and paragraphs 3(a) and 4(a) of Annex I to that directive, in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, to be interpreted as meaning that a payment institution, as the payment service provider of the payee, which transmits direct debit instructions, but does not itself carry out debit transactions directly and collects funds on the basis of the prior consents of the payers given to customers (payees) and places them into accounts with restricted functionality, is providing a direct debit service?

If the answer to the first question is that the payment service provider of the payee is not considered to be a direct debit service provider, and the answer to the second question is in the negative, are point 44 of Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and paragraph 5 of Annex I to that directive to be interpreted, in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, as meaning that a payment institution, as the payment service provider of the payee, which transmits direct debit instructions, but does not itself carry out debit transactions directly and collects funds on the basis of the prior consents of the payers given to customers (payees), and subsequently transfers those funds into customers’ accounts held with other payment service providers, is providing a payment transaction processing service?

If the answer to the third question is in the negative, are point 15 of Article 4 of Directive 2015/2366 and paragraph 7 of Annex I to that directive to be interpreted, in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, as meaning that a payment institution, as the payment service provider of the payee, which initiates a direct debit service on the basis of the payee’s instruction, but which does not carry out direct debit transactions itself and collects funds on the basis of the prior consents of the payers given to customers (payees), is to be regarded as providing a payment initiation service?

—

(1) OJ 2012 L 94, p. 22.

(2) OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4138/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—