# C_2022213EN.01001701.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 20 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 6 August 2021 — F C and M A B v Caixabank S.A., formerly Bankia, S.A.

(Case C-484/21)

(2022/C 213/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 20 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F C C and M A B

Defendant: Caixabank S.A., formerly Bankia, S. A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 (1) for the limitation period of an action for damages arising from an unfair term, such as a costs clause, to begin to run before the point when the term in question has been declared void for unfairness? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 (1) for the limitation period of an action for damages arising from an unfair term, such as a costs clause, to begin to run before the point when the term in question has been declared void for unfairness?

| 2. | Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 to fix the commencement of the limitation period for an unfair term as the date on which a court with authority to create case-law, such as the Supreme Court, states that a particular term is unfair, irrespective of whether or not the consumer in question is aware of the content of the judgment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 to fix the commencement of the limitation period for an unfair term as the date on which a court with authority to create case-law, such as the Supreme Court, states that a particular term is unfair, irrespective of whether or not the consumer in question is aware of the content of the judgment?

| 3. | Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 to establish that, in a long-term contract, the limitation period for claiming any mortgage creation costs paid begins to run at the point when payment is made, given that the unfair term has exhausted its effects at that point and there is no risk that it will be reapplied? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it compatible with Article 38 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], the principle of the effectiveness of EU law, and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 13/93 to establish that, in a long-term contract, the limitation period for claiming any mortgage creation costs paid begins to run at the point when payment is made, given that the unfair term has exhausted its effects at that point and there is no risk that it will be reapplied?

---

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

---