# C_2014421EN.01001901.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2014 — Banco Primus, S.A. v Jesús Gutiérrez García

(Case C-421/14)

2014/C 421/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Primus, S.A.

Applicant:

Defendant: Jesús Gutiérrez García

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

First question:

First question:

| 1. | Must the Fourth Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013 be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of the consumer? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the Fourth Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013 be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of the consumer?

| 2. | Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a consumer permitted to raise a complaint regarding the presence of unfair terms outside the period specified under national legislation for raising such a complaint, and is the national court required to examine such terms? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a consumer permitted to raise a complaint regarding the presence of unfair terms outside the period specified under national legislation for raising such a complaint, and is the national court required to examine such terms?

1

| 3. | Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a national court required to assess, of its own motion, whether a term is unfair and to determine the appropriate consequences, even where an earlier decision of that court reached the opposite conclusion or declined to make such an assessment and that decision was final under national procedural law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a national court required to assess, of its own motion, whether a term is unfair and to determine the appropriate consequences, even where an earlier decision of that court reached the opposite conclusion or declined to make such an assessment and that decision was final under national procedural law?

Second question:

Second question:

| 4. | In what way may the quality/price ratio affect the review of the unfairness of non-essential terms of a contract? When conducting an indirect review of such factors, is it relevant to have regard to the limits imposed on prices under national legislation? Is it possible that terms that are valid when viewed in abstract cease to be so where it is found that the price of the transaction is very high by comparison with the market standard? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In what way may the quality/price ratio affect the review of the unfairness of non-essential terms of a contract? When conducting an indirect review of such factors, is it relevant to have regard to the limits imposed on prices under national legislation? Is it possible that terms that are valid when viewed in abstract cease to be so where it is found that the price of the transaction is very high by comparison with the market standard?

Third question:

Third question:

| 5. | For the purposes of Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, can circumstances arising after the conclusion of the contract be taken into account if an examination of the national legislation suggests that this is required? |
| --- | --- |

5.

For the purposes of Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, can circumstances arising after the conclusion of the contract be taken into account if an examination of the national legislation suggests that this is required?

Fourth question:

Fourth question:

| 6. | Must Article 693(2) of the LEC [Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure)], as amended by Law 1/2013, be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of consumer interests? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Must Article 693(2) of the LEC [Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure)], as amended by Law 1/2013, be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of consumer interests?

| 7. | Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair term concerning accelerated repayment, declare that that term does not form part of the contract and determine the consequences inherent in such a finding, even where the seller or supplier has waited the minimum time provided for in the national provision? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair term concerning accelerated repayment, declare that that term does not form part of the contract and determine the consequences inherent in such a finding, even where the seller or supplier has waited the minimum time provided for in the national provision?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---