26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/14

(Case C-127/14)

2014/C 159/20

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrejs Surmačs

Defendant: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija

Questions referred

1.Must part 7 of Annex I to Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes be interpreted as meaning that the list set out there of persons who must be regarded as linked to the credit institution in question, and who must be refused the right to guaranteed compensation, is exhaustive?

2.May a person who, according to the description of his position, has the power to plan, coordinate and supervise a branch of the credit institution’s activity or the execution of a function, but not the credit institution’s activity in its entirety, and who is not entitled to give orders or make binding decisions on behalf of other persons be regarded as a manager of a credit institution or as any other of the persons mentioned in part 7 of Annex I to the Directive? Must the nature of that branch of the credit institution’s activity or of that function be taken into account?

3.Must part 7 of Annex I of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may refuse payment of the guaranteed compensation to a person who, having regard to the rights and obligations set out in the description of his position, cannot be regarded as a director but who has de facto a considerable influence over the credit institution’s directors or the persons personally responsible for that institution? Can merely informal influence, deriving from the authority, skills or knowledge of the person in relation to the credit institution’s activity, be relevant in that context?

Language of the case: Latvian

(1) OJ 1994 L 135, p. 1.