# C_2009019EN.01001602.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 November 2008 — Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)

(Case C-484/08)

(2009/C 19/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid

Applicant:

Defendant: Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 8 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as meaning that a Member State may provide in its legislation, for the benefit of consumers, that the assessment as to whether contractual terms are unfair is to be carried out also in respect of terms which, pursuant to Article 4(2) of that Directive, fall outside the scope of such an assessment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 8 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as meaning that a Member State may provide in its legislation, for the benefit of consumers, that the assessment as to whether contractual terms are unfair is to be carried out also in respect of terms which, pursuant to Article 4(2) of that Directive, fall outside the scope of such an assessment?

1

| 2. | Consequently, does Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, read in conjunction with Article 8 thereof, preclude a Member State from providing in its legislation, for the benefit of consumers, that the assessment as to whether contractual terms are unfair is to be carried out also in respect of terms which relate to ‘the definition of the main subject matter of the contract’ or to ‘the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange’, even where those terms are in plain, intelligible language? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Consequently, does Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, read in conjunction with Article 8 thereof, preclude a Member State from providing in its legislation, for the benefit of consumers, that the assessment as to whether contractual terms are unfair is to be carried out also in respect of terms which relate to ‘the definition of the main subject matter of the contract’ or to ‘the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange’, even where those terms are in plain, intelligible language?

| 3. | Is an interpretation of Articles 8 and 4(2) of Directive 91/13 under which it is possible for a Member State to provide for assessment by the courts as to whether contractual terms are unfair, which are in plain, intelligible language and which define the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, compatible with Articles 2, 3(1)(g) and 4(1) EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is an interpretation of Articles 8 and 4(2) of Directive 91/13 under which it is possible for a Member State to provide for assessment by the courts as to whether contractual terms are unfair, which are in plain, intelligible language and which define the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, compatible with Articles 2, 3(1)(g) and 4(1) EC?

---

(1)  OJ L 95, p. 29.

1

---