EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CA0019
Case C-19/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Markus Geltl v Daimler AG (Directives 2003/6/EC and 2003/124/EC — Inside information — Notion of ‘precise information’ — Intermediate steps in a protracted process — Reference to circumstances or an event which may reasonably be expected to come into existence or occur — Interpretation of the wording ‘may reasonably be expected’ — Public disclosure of information relating to change of a manager of a company)
Case C-19/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Markus Geltl v Daimler AG (Directives 2003/6/EC and 2003/124/EC — Inside information — Notion of ‘precise information’ — Intermediate steps in a protracted process — Reference to circumstances or an event which may reasonably be expected to come into existence or occur — Interpretation of the wording ‘may reasonably be expected’ — Public disclosure of information relating to change of a manager of a company)
Case C-19/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Markus Geltl v Daimler AG (Directives 2003/6/EC and 2003/124/EC — Inside information — Notion of ‘precise information’ — Intermediate steps in a protracted process — Reference to circumstances or an event which may reasonably be expected to come into existence or occur — Interpretation of the wording ‘may reasonably be expected’ — Public disclosure of information relating to change of a manager of a company)
OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 5–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.8.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 258/5 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Markus Geltl v Daimler AG
(Case C-19/11) (1)
(Directives 2003/6/EC and 2003/124/EC - Inside information - Notion of ‘precise information’ - Intermediate steps in a protracted process - Reference to circumstances or an event which may reasonably be expected to come into existence or occur - Interpretation of the wording ‘may reasonably be expected’ - Public disclosure of information relating to change of a manager of a company)
2012/C 258/08
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Markus Geltl
Defendant: Daimler AG
In the presence of: Lothar Meier and Others
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1, point 1 of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/6/EC of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC (OJ 2003 L 339, p. 70) — Interpretation of the expression ‘privileged information’ — Resignation of the chairman of a limited liability company — Whether various consultations and steps prior to the event in question needing to be taken into account in order to assess the precise nature of such information
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 1(1) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6 as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a protracted process intended to bring about a particular circumstance or to generate a particular event, not only may that future circumstance or future event be regarded as precise information within the meaning of those provisions, but also the intermediate steps of that process which are connected with bringing about that future circumstance or event; |
|
2. |
Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124 must be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘a set of circumstances which exists or may reasonably be expected to come into existence or an event which has occurred or may reasonably be expected to do so’ refers to future circumstances or events from which it appears, on the basis of an overall assessment of the factors existing at the relevant time, that there is a realistic prospect that they will come into existence or occur. However, that notion should not be interpreted as meaning that the magnitude of the effect of that set of circumstances or that event on the prices of the financial instruments concerned must be taken into consideration. |