# C_2015245EN.01000302.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 14 April 2015 — Milena Tomášová v Slovenská republika — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť, s.r.o.

(Case C-168/15)

(2015/C 245/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milena Tomášová

Applicant:

Defendants: Slovenská republika — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR,

Defendants:

Pohotovosť, s.r.o.

Intervener in support of the applicant: Združenie na ochranu spotrebiteľa HOOS

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there a serious breach of EU law if, in an enforcement procedure carried out on the basis of an arbitration award, performance of an unfair term is enforced, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there a serious breach of EU law if, in an enforcement procedure carried out on the basis of an arbitration award, performance of an unfair term is enforced, contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union?

| 2. | May liability of a Member State for a breach of Community law arise before a party to proceedings has used all legal remedies available in the legal order of the Member State in proceedings for enforcement of an award? In the light of the facts of the case, may that liability of a Member State arise in the present case before the actual conclusion of the proceedings for enforcement of the award and before exhaustion of the applicant’s possibility of requiring an account for unjust enrichment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May liability of a Member State for a breach of Community law arise before a party to proceedings has used all legal remedies available in the legal order of the Member State in proceedings for enforcement of an award? In the light of the facts of the case, may that liability of a Member State arise in the present case before the actual conclusion of the proceedings for enforcement of the award and before exhaustion of the applicant’s possibility of requiring an account for unjust enrichment?

| 3. | If so, is the conduct of an authority as described by the applicant, in the light of the particular facts and in particular of the absolute inactivity of the applicant and the non-exhaustion of all legal remedies made available by the law of the Member State, a sufficiently clear and serious breach of Community law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, is the conduct of an authority as described by the applicant, in the light of the particular facts and in particular of the absolute inactivity of the applicant and the non-exhaustion of all legal remedies made available by the law of the Member State, a sufficiently clear and serious breach of Community law?

| 4. | If there is a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in the present case, does the sum claimed by the applicant represent damage for which the Member State is liable? Is it possible for the damage as so understood to be equated with the debt collected which constitutes unjust enrichment? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If there is a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in the present case, does the sum claimed by the applicant represent damage for which the Member State is liable? Is it possible for the damage as so understood to be equated with the debt collected which constitutes unjust enrichment?

| 5. | Does accounting for unjust enrichment, as a legal remedy, have priority over compensation for damage? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does accounting for unjust enrichment, as a legal remedy, have priority over compensation for damage?

---