# C_2013171EN.01001001.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

(Case C-116/13)

2013/C 171/18

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco de Valencia SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the Spanish mortgage enforcement process comply with Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) in so far as it does not accept, as a precondition for deciding whether or not to order enforcement, judicial review of the court’s own motion of a clause for acceleration of the loan, at the request of the bank alone, which is considered unfair in itself and in the specific way it is applied to this case, that clause being indispensable for making that privileged means of enforcement available to a professional lender? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Spanish mortgage enforcement process comply with Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) in so far as it does not accept, as a precondition for deciding whether or not to order enforcement, judicial review of the court’s own motion of a clause for acceleration of the loan, at the request of the bank alone, which is considered unfair in itself and in the specific way it is applied to this case, that clause being indispensable for making that privileged means of enforcement available to a professional lender?

1

| 2. | Again having regard to Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, what must be the scope of the court’s intervention regarding that clause when it has to direct that enforcement is to take place in the mortgage enforcement process? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Again having regard to Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, what must be the scope of the court’s intervention regarding that clause when it has to direct that enforcement is to take place in the mortgage enforcement process?

| 3. | Can a contractual clause which enables the lending financial institution unilaterally to cancel the loan agreement on totally objective grounds, some of which have no connection with the loan agreement itself and, in the circumstances at issue in these proceedings, because of the failure to pay four monthly mortgage instalments, be regarded as unfair, both in itself and in the manner in which it is specifically applied to this case, in the light of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13/EEC and points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex thereto? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a contractual clause which enables the lending financial institution unilaterally to cancel the loan agreement on totally objective grounds, some of which have no connection with the loan agreement itself and, in the circumstances at issue in these proceedings, because of the failure to pay four monthly mortgage instalments, be regarded as unfair, both in itself and in the manner in which it is specifically applied to this case, in the light of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13/EEC and points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex thereto?

---

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

1

---