Geltl v Daimler AG (Freedom to provide services) [2012] EUECJ C-19/11 (21 March 2012)

Geltl v Daimler AG (Freedom to provide services) [2012] EUECJ C-19/11 (21 March 2012)

Intermediate steps in a protracted process may constitute inside information if they are precise and capable of affecting share prices; reasonable expectation does not require significant probability, only that the event is not improbable, and disclosure obligations are triggered when information is specific enough...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Markus Geltl; Respondent: Daimler AG
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Reference for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General
Outcome
Opinion delivered; preliminary ruling suggested to the Court of Justice.
Legal Topics
Insider Dealing, Inside Information, Market Abuse Directive, Disclosure Obligations, Share Price Manipulation
European Union Law Financial Services Law Securities Law Insider Dealing Inside Information Market Abuse Directive Disclosure Obligations Share Price Manipulation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Markus Geltl

Applicant

Daimler AG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference for Preliminary Ruling / Opinion of Advocate General

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intermediate steps in a protracted process can constitute inside information under Directive 2003/6/EC and Directive 2003/124/EC
  2. 2 Degree of probability required for information to be considered 'precise' and 'inside information' under EU law

Ratio Decidendi

Intermediate steps in a protracted process may constitute inside information if they are precise and capable of affecting share prices; reasonable expectation does not require significant probability, only that the event is not improbable, and disclosure obligations are triggered when information is specific enough to affect investment decisions.

Court Disposition

Opinion delivered; preliminary ruling suggested to the Court of Justice.

Orders

  • Point 1 of Article 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC and Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/124/EC interpreted to include intermediate steps as inside information if precise and capable of affecting prices.
  • Reasonable expectation does not require significant probability; information must be precise and not improbable.