# C_2016156EN.01002701.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

(Case C-92/16)

(2016/C 156/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

Applicant:

Defendants: Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contract may not subsist without the unfair term if the remaining contract imposes unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contract may not subsist without the unfair term if the remaining contract imposes unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier?

1

| 2. | If a contract imposing unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier cannot continue in existence, would the national court be entitled to save the contract, in the interests of protecting the consumer, by applying a provision of supplementary law, or would it have to remedy the contract with a rule that is minimally tolerable for the seller or supplier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a contract imposing unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier cannot continue in existence, would the national court be entitled to save the contract, in the interests of protecting the consumer, by applying a provision of supplementary law, or would it have to remedy the contract with a rule that is minimally tolerable for the seller or supplier?

| 3. | Does the fact that an early repayment clause is invalid because unfair allow the remaining contract to continue in existence within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the fact that an early repayment clause is invalid because unfair allow the remaining contract to continue in existence within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13?

| 4. | May the consumer waive the protection regime provided for in Directive 93/13 before the court hearing the proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May the consumer waive the protection regime provided for in Directive 93/13 before the court hearing the proceedings?

| 5. | Is a national procedural law, which makes the substantive rights and advantages enjoyed by a consumer subject to the condition that the latter submit to a specially expedited procedure but does not recognise such rights or advantages in other procedures, consistent with the principle of effectiveness laid down in Directive 93/13 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2) |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is a national procedural law, which makes the substantive rights and advantages enjoyed by a consumer subject to the condition that the latter submit to a specially expedited procedure but does not recognise such rights or advantages in other procedures, consistent with the principle of effectiveness laid down in Directive 93/13 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2)

2

---

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

1

(2)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

2

---