# C_2015320EN.01000201.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/2

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA v Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García

(Case C-602/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contractual relationship between a seller or a supplier and a consumer - Mortgage contract - Default interest clause - Early repayment clause - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Moderation of the amount of interest - Powers of the national court))

(2015/C 320/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Fernando Quintano Ujeta, María Isabel Sánchez García

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national provisions for moderating default interest under a mortgage contract, provided that those national provisions:






  — | do not prejudice to the assessment by the national court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings relating to that contract on the ‘unfairness’ of the default interest clause, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national provisions for moderating default interest under a mortgage contract, provided that those national provisions:

—

do not prejudice to the assessment by the national court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings relating to that contract on the ‘unfairness’ of the default interest clause, and

| — | do not prevent that court setting aside that clause should it conclude that the latter clause is ‘unfair’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. |
| --- | --- |

—

do not prevent that court setting aside that clause should it conclude that the latter clause is ‘unfair’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13.

| 2) | Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national court has established the ‘unfairness’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 of a clause in a contract between a consumer and a seller or a supplier, the fact that that clause has not been executed cannot, in itself, prevent the national court drawing the appropriate conclusions from the ‘unfair’ nature of that clause. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national court has established the ‘unfairness’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 of a clause in a contract between a consumer and a seller or a supplier, the fact that that clause has not been executed cannot, in itself, prevent the national court drawing the appropriate conclusions from the ‘unfair’ nature of that clause.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

1

---