# C_2008183EN.01000801.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III Kerületi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v Ferenc Schneider

(Case C-137/08)

(2008/C 183/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti II. és III Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt.

Applicant:

Defendant: Ferenc Schneider

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the consumer protection guaranteed by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts require that — irrespective of the type of proceedings and whether they are inter partes or not — in the context of the review of their own competences, the national courts are to assess, of their own motion, the unfair nature of a contractual term before them even if not specifically requested to do so? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the consumer protection guaranteed by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts require that — irrespective of the type of proceedings and whether they are inter partes or not — in the context of the review of their own competences, the national courts are to assess, of their own motion, the unfair nature of a contractual term before them even if not specifically requested to do so?

1

inter partes

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, what criteria may the national courts take into account in the context of that review, in particular in the case that the contractual term does not grant jurisdiction to the judicial body corresponding to the registered office of the service provider, but to a different judicial body which is located close to that registered office? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, what criteria may the national courts take into account in the context of that review, in particular in the case that the contractual term does not grant jurisdiction to the judicial body corresponding to the registered office of the service provider, but to a different judicial body which is located close to that registered office?

| 3. | Pursuant to the first paragraph of Articl 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, is the possibility precluded for the national courts to inform the Ministry of Justice of their own Member State that a reference for a preliminary ruling has been made at the same time as making that reference? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Pursuant to the first paragraph of Articl 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, is the possibility precluded for the national courts to inform the Ministry of Justice of their own Member State that a reference for a preliminary ruling has been made at the same time as making that reference?

---

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

1

---