- 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-156/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 April 2015 — SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ v AS ‘Swedbank’
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0156
62015CN0156
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 198/24
(Case C-156/15)
(2015/C 198/32)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’
Respondent: AS ‘Swedbank’
Questions referred
1.Must the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2002/47/EC (1) on financial collateral arrangements, having regard to recitals 1 and 4 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that those provisions apply only to accounts which are used for settlement in securities settlement systems, or as meaning that they apply equally to any account open in a bank, including a current account which is not used for securities settlement?
2.Must Article 8 and Article 3 of Directive 2002/47/EC, having regard to recitals 3 and 5 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the purpose of that directive is to ensure especially favourable priority treatment for credit institutions in the event of the insolvency of their customers, in particular, over other creditors of those customers, such as workers, in respect of wages owing to them, the State, in respect of its tax claims, and secured creditors, whose claims are secured by securities protected by the presumption of authenticity resulting from registration in a public register?
3.Must Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2002/47/EC be understood as an instrument for minimum harmonisation or for full harmonisation, that is to say, must it be interpreted as meaning that it allows Member States to extend that provision to persons who are expressly excluded from the scope of the directive?
4.Is Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2002/47/EC a directly applicable provision?
5.In the event that the purpose and scope of Directive 2002/47/EC are more limited than the actual purpose and scope of the national law, the adoption of which was formally justified on the basis of the obligation to transpose Directive 2002/47/EC, may the interpretation of that directive be used to invalidate a financial collateral clause based on national law, such as the clause at issue in the main proceedings?
Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43).