# C_2017151EN.01001902.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 23 February 2017 — Rafael Ramón Escobedo Cortés v Banco de Sabadell, S.A.

(Case C-94/17)

(2017/C 151/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Rafael Ramón Escobedo Cortés

Appellant:

Respondent: Banco de Sabadell, S.A.

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 3, in conjunction with [point 1(e) of the annex], and 4(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) preclude a judicial interpretation that declares that a term in a loan agreement setting a rate of default interest that exceeds by more than 2 % the annual ordinary interest rate fixed in the agreement constitutes disproportionately high compensation imposed on the consumer who is late performing his obligation to pay and is, therefore, unfair? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 3, in conjunction with [point 1(e) of the annex], and 4(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) preclude a judicial interpretation that declares that a term in a loan agreement setting a rate of default interest that exceeds by more than 2 % the annual ordinary interest rate fixed in the agreement constitutes disproportionately high compensation imposed on the consumer who is late performing his obligation to pay and is, therefore, unfair?

1

| 2. | Do Articles 3, in conjunction with [point 1(e) of the annex], 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude a judicial interpretation that, when a term in a loan agreement that sets the rate of default interest is declared unfair, identifies, as the object of the review of unfairness, the fact that that rate exceeds the ordinary interest rate, on the grounds that it constitutes ‘disproportionately high compensation imposed on the consumer who has not performed his obligations’, and establishes as the consequence of the declaration of unfairness that that additional charge must cease to apply, so that only ordinary interest continues to accrue until the loan has been repaid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 3, in conjunction with [point 1(e) of the annex], 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude a judicial interpretation that, when a term in a loan agreement that sets the rate of default interest is declared unfair, identifies, as the object of the review of unfairness, the fact that that rate exceeds the ordinary interest rate, on the grounds that it constitutes ‘disproportionately high compensation imposed on the consumer who has not performed his obligations’, and establishes as the consequence of the declaration of unfairness that that additional charge must cease to apply, so that only ordinary interest continues to accrue until the loan has been repaid?

| 3. | If the second question were to be answered in the negative: must a declaration that a term setting a rate of default interest is void, because unfair, have other effects in order to be compatible with Directive 93/13, such as, for example, the total elimination of both ordinary and default interest, when the borrower fails to perform his obligation to make the loan repayments within the time-limits stipulated in the agreement, or the charging of statutory interest? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question were to be answered in the negative: must a declaration that a term setting a rate of default interest is void, because unfair, have other effects in order to be compatible with Directive 93/13, such as, for example, the total elimination of both ordinary and default interest, when the borrower fails to perform his obligation to make the loan repayments within the time-limits stipulated in the agreement, or the charging of statutory interest?

---

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

1

---