# C_2017161EN.01001301.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 March 2017 — Bankia S.A. v Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino

(Case C-109/17)

(2017/C 161/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia S.A.

Applicant:

Defendants: Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Directive 2005/29/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that currently regulating Spanish mortgage enforcement — Article 695 et seq. in conjunction with Article 552(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) — which does not provide for the review by the courts, of their own motion or even at the request of one of the parties, of unfair commercial practices, is contrary to Article 11 of that directive because that national legislation hinders or prevents review by the courts of contracts or acts which may contain unfair commercial practices? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Directive 2005/29/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that currently regulating Spanish mortgage enforcement — Article 695 et seq. in conjunction with Article 552(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) — which does not provide for the review by the courts, of their own motion or even at the request of one of the parties, of unfair commercial practices, is contrary to Article 11 of that directive because that national legislation hinders or prevents review by the courts of contracts or acts which may contain unfair commercial practices?

1

| 2. | Must Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as the Spanish law which does not ensure actual compliance with the code of conduct if the party seeking enforcement of a debt decides not to apply that code (Articles 5 and 6 in conjunction with Article 15 of Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012) is contrary to Article 11 of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as the Spanish law which does not ensure actual compliance with the code of conduct if the party seeking enforcement of a debt decides not to apply that code (Articles 5 and 6 in conjunction with Article 15 of Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012) is contrary to Article 11 of that directive?

| 3. | Must Article 11 of Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as precluding Spanish national legislation which does not allow a consumer, during mortgage enforcement proceedings, to request compliance with a code of conduct, in particular as regards the giving of a property in payment and extinguishment of the debt — Point 3 of the Annex to Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012, Code of Good Practice? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 11 of Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as precluding Spanish national legislation which does not allow a consumer, during mortgage enforcement proceedings, to request compliance with a code of conduct, in particular as regards the giving of a property in payment and extinguishment of the debt — Point 3 of the Annex to Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012, Code of Good Practice?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

1

---