News

On the 25th July, 2015 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) adopted a preliminary ruling in the case Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas and Nemaniūnas (C-671/13), regarding the protection schemes applicable to the holders of ‘Snoras’ bonds and deposit certificates.

On the 16th December, 2013 the Supreme Court of Lithuania submitted to the ECJ a request for a preliminary ruling, asking to clarify, whether the provisions of the EU Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes (94/19) and Investor-compensation schemes’ directive (97/7), were properly transposed into domestic legal acts, which did not provide any protection to the holders of ‘Snoras’ bonds and deposit certificates.

The ECJ held that the choice of the Lithuanian legislator to implement the provisions of both – Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes and Investor-compensation schemes’ directive, in the same legal act was not contrary to the EU law. However, the choice of the legislator to avail itself to one of the Directive’s on deposit-guarantee schemes exceptions could not result in the inapplicability of the protection under the Investor-compensation schemes directive. ECJ noted that the exception in the Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes’ may only be used for transferable deposit certificates. It is for the national court to determine, whether a particular certificate is transferable.

The ECJ has also noted that the provisions of the Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes have been transposed into the domestic law incorrectly insofar as additional conditions were set in order to take advantage of the protection under the deposit-guarantee scheme. 

The preliminary ruling has also stated that the provision of the Investor-compensation schemes directive, which provides the instances, when the protection is applicable, is unconditional and sufficiently precise, so that it may be relied upon before the national courts by individuals against the Member State directly. The entities against which the provisions of a directive that are capable of having direct effect may be relied upon include a body, which has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals. According to the ECJ the national court will have to determine, whether VĮ „Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas“ satisfies the abovementioned criteria.
 
Taking into consideration the clarifications provided by the ECJ, the Supreme Court of Lithuania will shortly deal with the issues, whether and if so what kind of protection is applicable to the holders of ‘Snoras’ bonds and deposit certificates.

You may find the full text of the ECJ preliminary ruling at:  http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=165236&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=98714