Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62014CN0235

    Case C-235/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2014  — Safe Interenvíos, S.A. v Liberbank, S.A. and Others

    OJ C 235, 21.7.2014, p. 9–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    21.7.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 235/9

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2014 — Safe Interenvíos, S.A. v Liberbank, S.A. and Others

    (Case C-235/14)

    2014/C 235/13

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Referring court

    Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Safe Interenvíos, S.A.

    Defendants: Liberbank, S.A., Banco de Sabadell, S.A. and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

    Questions referred

    1)

    The interpretation of Article 11(1) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1):

    a)

    If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, was it the Union legislature’s intention to establish a genuine derogation from the possibility that credit institutions may adopt customer due diligence measures when their customers are themselves payment institutions in turn subject to their own supervision system, or is it simply an authorisation to derogate?

    b)

    If this provision is read in conjunction with Article 5 of that directive, may the national legislature transpose the derogation laid down in the provision concerned in terms other than the actual wording thereof?

    c)

    Does the derogation contained in Article 11(1) apply to enhanced due diligence measures too in the same terms as it applies to due diligence measures?

    2)

    In the alternative, should the reply to the above questions confirm that credit institutions may adopt due diligence measures and enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

    a)

    How far does the possibility that credit institutions may supervise the operations of payment institutions extend? Can they be deemed to be authorised under the provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC to supervise the due diligence procedures and measures adopted in turn by payment institutions or does that power belong exclusively to the public institutions referred to in Directive 2007/64/EC (2), in the present case, the Banco de España (Bank of Spain)?

    b)

    Does the application of that right of credit institutions to adopt measures require any special justification that may be deduced from the acts of the payment institution or may those measures instead be adopted generally, simply on account of the fact that the payment institution carries out a risky activity such as the sending of remittances abroad?

    c)

    If it is held that a specific justification is required in order for credit institutions to be able to adopt due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

    i.

    What is the relevant conduct that a bank must bear in mind for the purposes of adopting due diligence measures?

    ii.

    Can a credit institution be considered authorised to assess, for that purpose, the due diligence measures which a payment institution applies in its procedures?

    iii.

    Does the fact that a bank may have identified in a payment institution’s operations conduct leading it to suspect collaboration in money-laundering activities or in terrorist financing require the exercise of that power?

    3)

    In addition, if it should be held that credit institutions are authorised to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in relation to payment institutions:

    a)

    Is it acceptable that those measures may include a measure requiring payment institutions to provide identification data for all their customers from whom the funds remitted originate, and the identities of the recipients?

    b)

    Is the obligation of payment institutions to provide their customers’ data to credit institutions with which they are forced to operate and with which they also compete on the market compatible with Directive 95/46/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data?

    (1)  Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

    (2)  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 (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).

    (3)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

    Top