Language of document :

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation – France) – LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

(Case C-85/12) 1

(Request for a preliminary ruling – Reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions – Directive 2001/24/EC – Articles 3, 9 and 32 – National legislative act conferring on reorganisation measures the effects of winding-up proceedings – Legislative measure prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf

Defendants: Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling – Cour de cassation – Interpretation of Articles 3, 9 and 32 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15) – Authorities authorised to adopt reorganisation and winding up measures for credit institutions – Administrative or judicial authorities – Permissibility of measures stemming directly from a law of a Member State of the EEA – Law applicable to proceedings concerning assets of a credit institution situated in a Member State – Effects on the application, in a Member State, of a legislative measure of another Member State, prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium, in the case of interim protective measures adopted prior to the declaration of the moratorium

Operative part of the judgment

1.    Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions must be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial institution, such as those based on the transitional provisions in point II of Law No 44/2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by an administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles of Directive 2001/24, where those transitional provisions take effect only by means of judicial decisions granting a moratorium to a credit institution.

2.    Article 32 of Directive 2001/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, as Article 98 of Law No 161/2002 on financial institutions, as amended by Law No 129/2008 of 13 November 2008, which prohibited or suspended any legal action against a financial institution once it benefitted from a moratorium, from being effective in regard to interim protective measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in another Member State before the declaration of the moratorium.

____________

1 OJ C 118, 24.4.2012.