- 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-409/22, Eurobank Bulgaria: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad – Sofia – Bulgaria) – UA v EUROBANK BULGARIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of capital – Payment services in the internal market – Directive 2007/64/EC – Concept of payment instrument – Power of attorney of an agent acting on behalf of the account holder – Copy of the power of attorney with an apostille certificate – Articles 54 and 59 – Consent to the execution of a payment transaction – Concept of authentication – Unauthorised payment transactions – Liability of the payment service provider for those transactions – Burden of proof)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0409
62022CA0409
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2024/5193
(Case C-409/22,
Eurobank Bulgaria)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Concept of ‘payment instrument’ - Power of attorney of an agent acting on behalf of the account holder - Copy of the power of attorney with an ‘apostille’ certificate - Articles 54 and 59 - Consent to the execution of a payment transaction - Concept of ‘authentication’ - Unauthorised payment transactions - Liability of the payment service provider for those transactions - Burden of proof)
(C/2024/5193)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: UA
Defendant: EUROBANK BULGARIA
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 4(23) 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 meaning that a power of attorney, by which the holder of a bank account authorises an agent to make a disposal of assets, on that account, by means of a payment order, does not, in itself, constitute a ‘payment instrument’ within the meaning of that provision. However, a set of procedures, agreed between the holder of that account and the payment service provider, which allows the agent appointed in such a power of attorney to initiate a payment order from that account, may be classified as a ‘payment instrument’.
2.Article 54(1) and (2), Article 59(1) and (2) and Article 86(1) of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted as meaning that where a payment transaction was executed on the basis of a power of attorney granted by the holder of a bank account, which was formalised as a notarial document and bears an ‘apostille’ certificate, and the account holder disputes the validity of that power of attorney and, therefore, that consent was given to that payment transaction, the fact that the power of attorney in question is formally regular is not sufficient for it to be assumed that that transaction was authorised, and the payment service provider must demonstrate that, by means of that power of attorney, the payment service user duly expressed agreement, in accordance with the procedure for giving consent agreed with that provider, to the payment transaction in question.
—
(1) OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5193/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—