14.5.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/3

(Joined Cases C-688/15 and C-109/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes - Directive 94/19/EC - Article 1(1) - Deposits - Temporary situations deriving from normal banking transactions - Directive 97/9/EC - Second subparagraph of Article 2(2) - Money owed to or belonging to an investor and held on his behalf by an investment firm in connection with investment business - Credit institution which issues transferable securities - Funds transferred by individuals to that institution in respect of subscription to future transferable securities - Application of Directive 2004/39/EC - Insolvency of that institution before the transferable securities in question are issued - Public undertaking entrusted with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes - Ability to rely on Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC against that undertaking))

(2018/C 166/03)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Other parties: bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation, ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, bankas ‘Finasta’ AB (C-688/15)

Other parties: Alvydas Raišelis, bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation (C-109/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1.Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes, on the one hand, and Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, on the other, must be interpreted as meaning that claims relating to funds which were debited from accounts that individuals held with a credit institution and credited to accounts opened in that institution’s name, in respect of subscription to future transferable securities of which that institution was to be the issuer, in circumstances where owing to that institution’s insolvency those securities were ultimately not issued, fall within both the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9 and the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19.

2.Article 2(3) of Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where claims fall within both the deposit-guarantee schemes provided for by Directive 94/19 and the investor-compensation schemes provided for by Directive 97/9, and the national legislature has not directed such claims to a scheme under one or other of those directives, the court dealing with the case may not decide itself, on the basis of that provision, which scheme the holders of those claims may benefit from. On the contrary, in such a situation it falls to the holders of the claims to choose to be compensated by one or other of the schemes laid down in national law to implement those two directives.

3.Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, and Article 1(4) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 97/9, must be interpreted as being capable of being relied upon by individuals before the national courts in support of claims for compensation against a public undertaking entrusted, in a Member State, with the deposit-guarantee and investor-compensation schemes.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

<span class="super">1</span> OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.