# C_2016156EN.01002401.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

(Case C-75/16)

(2016/C 156/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Verona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli

Applicants:

Defendant: Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In so far as it provides that Directive 2013/11 (1)‘shall be without prejudice to Directive 2008/52’, (2) must Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/11 be construed as meaning that it is without prejudice to the possibility for individual Member States of providing for compulsory mediation solely in those cases which do not fall within the scope of Directive 2013/11, that is to say the cases referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2013/11, contractual disputes arising out of contracts other than sales or service contracts, as well as those which do not concern consumers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In so far as it provides that Directive 2013/11 (1)‘shall be without prejudice to Directive 2008/52’, (2) must Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/11 be construed as meaning that it is without prejudice to the possibility for individual Member States of providing for compulsory mediation solely in those cases which do not fall within the scope of Directive 2013/11, that is to say the cases referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2013/11, contractual disputes arising out of contracts other than sales or service contracts, as well as those which do not concern consumers?

1

2

| 2. | In so far as it guarantees consumers the possibility of submitting complaints against traders to appropriate entities offering alternative dispute resolution procedures, must Article 1 ... of Directive 2013/11 be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule which requires the use of mediation in one of the disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2013/11 as a precondition for the bringing of legal proceedings by the consumer, and, in any event, as precluding a national rule that requires a consumer taking part in mediation relating to one of the abovementioned disputes to be assisted by a lawyer and to bear the related costs, and allows a party not to participate in mediation only on valid grounds? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as it guarantees consumers the possibility of submitting complaints against traders to appropriate entities offering alternative dispute resolution procedures, must Article 1 ... of Directive 2013/11 be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule which requires the use of mediation in one of the disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2013/11 as a precondition for the bringing of legal proceedings by the consumer, and, in any event, as precluding a national rule that requires a consumer taking part in mediation relating to one of the abovementioned disputes to be assisted by a lawyer and to bear the related costs, and allows a party not to participate in mediation only on valid grounds?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) (OJ 2013 L 165, p. 63).

1

(2)  Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3).

2

---