# C_2021019EN.01004402.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 29 October 2020 — A. H. v Zagrebačka banka d.d.

(Case C-567/20)

(2021/C 19/46)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. H.

Defendant: Zagrebačka banka d.d.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular in Case C-118/17, Dunai, be interpreted as meaning that the legislature’s intervention in the relationships between a consumer who is a borrower [Or. 2] and a bank cannot deprive consumers of their right to challenge in court the terms of the original contract, or of an annex to the contract concluded pursuant to statute, in order to exercise their right to reimbursement of all the advantages which the bank unduly obtained to the detriment of consumers as a result of applying unfair contract terms, where, following an intervention by the legislature, the consumers entered into an amendment of the original contractual relationship voluntarily on the basis of a statutory obligation imposed on banks to offer consumers this possibility, and not directly as a result of statutory intervention as was the case in Dunai? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular in Case C-118/17, Dunai, be interpreted as meaning that the legislature’s intervention in the relationships between a consumer who is a borrower [Or. 2] and a bank cannot deprive consumers of their right to challenge in court the terms of the original contract, or of an annex to the contract concluded pursuant to statute, in order to exercise their right to reimbursement of all the advantages which the bank unduly obtained to the detriment of consumers as a result of applying unfair contract terms, where, following an intervention by the legislature, the consumers entered into an amendment of the original contractual relationship voluntarily on the basis of a statutory obligation imposed on banks to offer consumers this possibility, and not directly as a result of statutory intervention as was the case in Dunai?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is a national court ruling on a case between two parties (the borrower and the bank) — where that court is unable, following the interpretation adopted by the Vrhovni sud (Supreme Court, Croatia), to give an interpretation to the provisions of the national Zakon o izmjeni i dopunama Zakona o potrošačkom kreditiranju (Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Consumer Credit) that would meet the requirements of Directive 93/13 — authorised and/or required, under that directive and under Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to disapply that national law as interpreted by the Supreme Court? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is a national court ruling on a case between two parties (the borrower and the bank) — where that court is unable, following the interpretation adopted by the Vrhovni sud (Supreme Court, Croatia), to give an interpretation to the provisions of the national Zakon o izmjeni i dopunama Zakona o potrošačkom kreditiranju (Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on Consumer Credit) that would meet the requirements of Directive 93/13 — authorised and/or required, under that directive and under Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to disapply that national law as interpreted by the Supreme Court?

---

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

---