- 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-337/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — DM, LR v Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) — Alpes-Provence (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64/EC — Articles 58 and 60 — Payment service user — Notification of unauthorised payment transactions — Liability of the payment service provider for those transactions — Action for liability brought by the guarantor of a payment service user)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0337
62020CA0337
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
15.11.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 462/20
(Case C-337/20)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Articles 58 and 60 - Payment service user - Notification of unauthorised payment transactions - Liability of the payment service provider for those transactions - Action for liability brought by the guarantor of a payment service user)
(2021/C 462/20)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: DM, LR
Defendant: Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) — Alpes-Provence
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 58 and Article 60(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as precluding a payment service user from being able to trigger the liability of the provider of those services on the basis of a liability regime other than that provided for by those provisions, in the case where that user has failed to fulfil his or her obligation to notify laid down in that Article 58;
2.Article 58 and Article 60(1) of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as not precluding the guarantor of a payment service user from relying, by reason of a failure on the part of the payment service provider to fulfil its obligations relating to an unauthorised transaction, on the civil liability of such a provider, which is entitled to the guarantee, in order to challenge the amount of the guaranteed debt, in accordance with a contractual liability regime under the general law.
(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.