# C_2015414EN.01001901.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Secretario Judicial of the Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 23 September 2015 — Ramón Margarit Panicello v Pilar Hernández Martínez

(Case C-503/15)

(2015/C 414/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Secretario Judicial of the Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ramón Margarit Panicello

Applicant:

Defendant: Pilar Hernández Martínez

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 34, 35, 207(2), 207(3) and 207(4) of Law 1/2000 [on Civil Procedure], which govern the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees (‘jura de cuentas’), incompatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) in that they preclude the possibility of judicial review? If that is the case:
  In the context of the procedure provided for in Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000, is a Secretario Judicial a ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 34, 35, 207(2), 207(3) and 207(4) of Law 1/2000 [on Civil Procedure], which govern the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees (‘jura de cuentas’), incompatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) in that they preclude the possibility of judicial review? If that is the case:

1

In the context of the procedure provided for in Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000, is a Secretario Judicial a ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 2. | Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of Directive [93/13/EEC (2)] and Articles 6(1)(d), 11 and 12 of Directive 2005/29/EC (3) inasmuch as they preclude any examination ex officio of possible unfair terms or unfair commercial practices in contracts concluded between lawyers and natural persons who are acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of Directive [93/13/EEC (2)] and Articles 6(1)(d), 11 and 12 of Directive 2005/29/EC (3) inasmuch as they preclude any examination ex officio of possible unfair terms or unfair commercial practices in contracts concluded between lawyers and natural persons who are acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession?

2

3

ex officio

| 3. | Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of, and [point 1(q) of the Annex to], Directive [93/13/EEC] inasmuch as they preclude the production of evidence for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of, and [point 1(q) of the Annex to], Directive [93/13/EEC] inasmuch as they preclude the production of evidence for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees?

---

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

1

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

2

(3)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

3

---