# C_2014151EN.01001301.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra (Spain) lodged on 26 February 2014 — Miguel Angel Zurbano Belaza, Antonia Artieda Soria v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

(Case C-93/14)

2014/C 151/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Navarra

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Miguel Angel Zurbano Belaza and Antonia Artieda Soria

Appellants:

Other party: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, is Directive 93/13/EEC (1) applicable for the purpose of examining the terms of a mortgage loan contracted in 1986, in view of the fact that the third auction (19 July 1993), the decisions of the court approving the quantification of the interest (3 July 2000) and definitively approving the order awarding the properties auctioned (18 July 2000) all post-date the publication of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, is Directive 93/13/EEC (1) applicable for the purpose of examining the terms of a mortgage loan contracted in 1986, in view of the fact that the third auction (19 July 1993), the decisions of the court approving the quantification of the interest (3 July 2000) and definitively approving the order awarding the properties auctioned (18 July 2000) all post-date the publication of that directive?

in personam

1

| 2. | If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, must the national court interpret Article 10 of Law 26/1984 in the light of Directive 1993/13, in view of the fact that the third auction (19 July 1993), the decisions of the court approving the quantification of the interest (3 July 2000) and definitively approving the order awarding the properties auctioned (18 July 2000) all post-date the publication of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, must the national court interpret Article 10 of Law 26/1984 in the light of Directive 1993/13, in view of the fact that the third auction (19 July 1993), the decisions of the court approving the quantification of the interest (3 July 2000) and definitively approving the order awarding the properties auctioned (18 July 2000) all post-date the publication of that directive?

in personam

| 3. | For the purposes of the exclusion provided for in Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13, does the mandatory nature of rule 12 of Article 131 of the Law on mortgages affect only the form of the procedures to be followed in respect of the third auction when a mortgage lender brings an action in rem, without preventing the national court, when the mortgage lender subsequently brings an action in personam, from considering whether the method of calculating the amount claimed is compatible with Community legislation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of the exclusion provided for in Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13, does the mandatory nature of rule 12 of Article 131 of the Law on mortgages affect only the form of the procedures to be followed in respect of the third auction when a mortgage lender brings an action in rem, without preventing the national court, when the mortgage lender subsequently brings an action in personam, from considering whether the method of calculating the amount claimed is compatible with Community legislation?

in rem

in personam

| 4. | Is it contrary to Community consumer protection legislation (Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 93/13) for a bank, after the mortgaged properties have been sold at auction and awarded at a ‘derisory’ price, to bring an action in personam against its clients and to use the ‘derisory’ price that was offered for the properties at the time of the auction in order to fix the amount of the debt claimed? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it contrary to Community consumer protection legislation (Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 93/13) for a bank, after the mortgaged properties have been sold at auction and awarded at a ‘derisory’ price, to bring an action in personam against its clients and to use the ‘derisory’ price that was offered for the properties at the time of the auction in order to fix the amount of the debt claimed?

in personam

| 5. | If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, which were awarded to it at a ‘derisory’ price, does failure to take into consideration the legislative amendments introduced by Laws 1/2000 and 4/2011 constitute a breach of the general principle of equal treatment? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, which were awarded to it at a ‘derisory’ price, does failure to take into consideration the legislative amendments introduced by Laws 1/2000 and 4/2011 constitute a breach of the general principle of equal treatment?

in personam

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts; OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---