8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/21

(Case C-52/17)

(2017/C 144/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VTB Bank (Austria) AG

Respondent: Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsicht

Questions referred

1.Are provisions of European Union secondary legislation (in particular, for example, Article 64 or 65(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (1) ) applicable to the levying by the authorities of interest pursuant to a Member State’s legal provisions under which a credit institution, on exceeding the limit for large exposures under Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, (2) is to have interest of 2 per cent of the excess over the limit for large exposures, calculated on an annual basis, levied on it for 30 days?

2.Does EU law (in particular, Article 395(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, as corrected by the Corrigendum (OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6), preclude a national provision such as that which was contained in Paragraph 97(1)(4) of the Bankwesengesetz (Law on Banking) (as amended by BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) I No 532/2014) where, despite the fact that the conditions for applying the exemption provided for in Article 395(5) are satisfied, (absorption) interest is levied for a breach of Article 395(1)?

3.Is Article 48(3) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2014/17) (SSM Framework Regulation) (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ can be deemed to exist simply where an undertaking submits a report to the supervisor, or can a ‘formally initiated supervisory procedure’ be deemed to exist where a supervisory decision has already been rendered in a parallel procedure for similar breaches?

(1)

OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338.

(2)

OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1.

(3)

Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).