# C_2004201EN.01000902.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of 27 May 2004 in case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, and Joachim Nitschke.

(Case C-229/01)

(2004/C 201/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) of 27 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, and Joachim Nitschke, on the following questions:

| 1. | Is it compatible with Article 1(1) of Directive 85/577/EEC (1) for the rights of consumers, in particular their right of cancellation, to be made subject not only to the existence of a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in Article 1(1) of the directive but also to additional criteria for responsibility, such as a trader's deliberate use of a third party in the conclusion of the agreement or a trader's negligence in respect of the third party's conduct in connection with the doorstep selling? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Article 1(1) of Directive 85/577/EEC (1) for the rights of consumers, in particular their right of cancellation, to be made subject not only to the existence of a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in Article 1(1) of the directive but also to additional criteria for responsibility, such as a trader's deliberate use of a third party in the conclusion of the agreement or a trader's negligence in respect of the third party's conduct in connection with the doorstep selling?

1

| 2. | Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for a mortgage borrower, who not only concluded the loan agreement in a doorstep-selling situation but also arranged, in that situation, for the loan to be paid into an account which, in practice, is no longer at his disposal, to have to pay back the loan to the lender if the agreement is cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for a mortgage borrower, who not only concluded the loan agreement in a doorstep-selling situation but also arranged, in that situation, for the loan to be paid into an account which, in practice, is no longer at his disposal, to have to pay back the loan to the lender if the agreement is cancelled?

| 3. | Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for the mortgage borrower, if he is required to pay back the loan following cancellation, to have to do so not on the instalment repayment dates laid down in the agreement but immediately in a one-off sum? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for the mortgage borrower, if he is required to pay back the loan following cancellation, to have to do so not on the instalment repayment dates laid down in the agreement but immediately in a one-off sum?

| 4. | Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for the mortgage borrower, if he is also required to pay back the loan following cancellation, to have to pay interest on it at the normal market rate? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC for the mortgage borrower, if he is also required to pay back the loan following cancellation, to have to pay interest on it at the normal market rate?

---

(1)  OJ L 372, p. 31.

1

---