# C_2021502EN.01001501.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 September 2021 — QE v Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest

(Case C-600/21)

(2021/C 502/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: QE

Respondent: Caisse régionale de Crédit mutuel de Loire-Atlantique et du Centre Ouest

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer contract (1) may not dispense with the requirement for a formal written demand, even if it is expressly and unequivocally provided for in the contract? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer contract (1) may not dispense with the requirement for a formal written demand, even if it is expressly and unequivocally provided for in the contract?

| 2. | Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60,] to be interpreted as meaning that a delay of over 30 days in the payment of a single instalment of principal, interest or incidental amounts may constitute sufficiently serious non-compliance in the light of the term and amount of the loan and the overall balance of the contractual relationship? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60,] to be interpreted as meaning that a delay of over 30 days in the payment of a single instalment of principal, interest or incidental amounts may constitute sufficiently serious non-compliance in the light of the term and amount of the loan and the overall balance of the contractual relationship?

| 3. | Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 to be interpreted as precluding a clause which provides that accelerated repayment of a loan may be triggered in the event of a delay in payment of over 30 days, when national law, which requires a formal written demand to be sent before the accelerated repayment of the loan, permits the parties to dispense with that step, in which case reasonable notice is required? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 to be interpreted as precluding a clause which provides that accelerated repayment of a loan may be triggered in the event of a delay in payment of over 30 days, when national law, which requires a formal written demand to be sent before the accelerated repayment of the loan, permits the parties to dispense with that step, in which case reasonable notice is required?

| 4. | As to the four criteria identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60], for use by the national court in assessing the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, are those criteria cumulative or alternative? |
| --- | --- |

4.

As to the four criteria identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 26 January 2017, Banco Primus, C-421/14, [EU:C:2017:60], for use by the national court in assessing the potential unfairness of the term relating to accelerated repayment resulting from a failure on the part of the debtor to comply with his obligations during a limited specific period, are those criteria cumulative or alternative?

| 5. | If the four criteria referred to above are cumulative, can the clause nevertheless be held not to be unfair in the light of the relative importance of a particular criterion? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the four criteria referred to above are cumulative, can the clause nevertheless be held not to be unfair in the light of the relative importance of a particular criterion?

---

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

---