EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0015
Case C-15/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht v Ewald Baumeister
Case C-15/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht v Ewald Baumeister
Case C-15/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht v Ewald Baumeister
OJ C 111, 29.3.2016, p. 11–12
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.3.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 111/11 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht v Ewald Baumeister
(Case C-15/16)
(2016/C 111/14)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant on point of law and defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
Respondent on point of law and applicant: Ewald Baumeister
Third Party: Frank Schmitt as administrator of the assets of Phoenix Kapitaldienst GmbH
Questions referred
1. |
|
2. |
Must the term ‘confidential information’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC be interpreted as meaning that for business information communicated by the supervisory authority to be classified as a business secret meriting protection or as information otherwise meriting protection, the relevant factor is solely the date of communication to the supervisory authority? If the second question is answered in the negative: |
3. |
Regarding the question of whether an item of business information is to be protected as a business secret regardless of changes in the economic climate and is therefore subject to the obligation of professional secrecy in accordance with the second sentence of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, must, in a general manner, a time limit — of five years, say — be assumed, following expiry of which it will be rebuttably presumed that the information has lost its economic value? Do analogous considerations apply as regards prudential secrecy? |