# C_2015279EN.01002401.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

(Case C-307/15)

(2015/C 279/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ana María Palacios Martínez

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, for the restitutory effects derived from a declaration on grounds of unfairness of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ included in a loan agreement not to be applied retroactively from the date of conclusion of the agreement but rather from a later date? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, for the restitutory effects derived from a declaration on grounds of unfairness of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ included in a loan agreement not to be applied retroactively from the date of conclusion of the agreement but rather from a later date?

| 2. | Is the criterion that those concerned must act in good faith, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the criterion that those concerned must act in good faith, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

| 3. | If so, what circumstances must be taken into account in order for it to be determined whether those concerned acted in good faith? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, what circumstances must be taken into account in order for it to be determined whether those concerned acted in good faith?

| 4. | At all events, is it compatible with the criterion of good faith for the actions of a seller or supplier, in creating the agreement, to have been the cause of a lack of transparency making the term unfair? |
| --- | --- |

4.

At all events, is it compatible with the criterion of good faith for the actions of a seller or supplier, in creating the agreement, to have been the cause of a lack of transparency making the term unfair?

| 5. | Is the risk of serious difficulties, which operates as a basis for limitation of the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the risk of serious difficulties, which operates as a basis for limitation of the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

| 6. | If so, what criteria ought to be taken into account? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If so, what criteria ought to be taken into account?

| 7. | Must the risk of serious difficulties be assessed by taking account solely of the risk which may arise for the seller or supplier or must account also be taken of the loss caused to a consumer by the failure to reimburse in full the sums paid under that ‘floor clause’? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Must the risk of serious difficulties be assessed by taking account solely of the risk which may arise for the seller or supplier or must account also be taken of the loss caused to a consumer by the failure to reimburse in full the sums paid under that ‘floor clause’?

---

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

---