# C_2011269EN.01002201.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.

(Case C-252/11)

2011/C 269/41

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Erika Šujetová

Applicant:

Defendant: Rapid life životná poisťovňa, a.s.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law under which the court with territorial jurisdiction for the review of an arbitral award is always and only the court in whose area of jurisdiction, pursuant to an arbitration agreement or clause, the arbitration tribunal is established or the place of arbitration is situated, if the court finds that the arbitration agreement or clause is an unfair term within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the above directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law under which the court with territorial jurisdiction for the review of an arbitral award is always and only the court in whose area of jurisdiction, pursuant to an arbitration agreement or clause, the arbitration tribunal is established or the place of arbitration is situated, if the court finds that the arbitration agreement or clause is an unfair term within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the above directive?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is negative: do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude the application of a provision of national law under which a court ... upon annulling an arbitral award, is to continue the main proceedings (i.e. concerning the claim originally heard before the arbitration tribunal) without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction over such continuing proceedings, even though, if the claim against the consumer had been filed from the outset with a court and not an arbitration tribunal, the court with territorial jurisdiction for the proceedings would have been, from the outset, the court of the consumer’s place of residence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is negative: do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude the application of a provision of national law under which a court ... upon annulling an arbitral award, is to continue the main proceedings (i.e. concerning the claim originally heard before the arbitration tribunal) without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction over such continuing proceedings, even though, if the claim against the consumer had been filed from the outset with a court and not an arbitration tribunal, the court with territorial jurisdiction for the proceedings would have been, from the outset, the court of the consumer’s place of residence?

---

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

1

---