# C_2019148EN.01002001.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece) lodged on 8 February 2019 — WP v Trapeza Peiraios AE

(Case C-105/19)

(2019/C 148/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WP

Defendant: Trapeza Peiraios AE

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) to be interpreted as establishing a procedural rule of public policy requiring national courts to take into account, of their own motion, including at the stage of the application for the issue of an order for payment, the unfairness of a term stipulated between a supplier and a consumer, taking into account in particular (i) that in the Greek legal system, in accordance with Articles 623, 624, 628 and 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure (kodikas politikis dikonomias), not only does such a requirement not exist but, in addition, the order for payment is issued in ex parte proceedings, after a formal check of documents including the credit agreement, (ii) that the competence to issue an order for payment lies with a court of the Greek State and (iii) that the order for payment constitutes an immediately enforceable order, under which the supplier may, after three (3) days, initiate enforcement proceedings which are not subject to any suspension? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) to be interpreted as establishing a procedural rule of public policy requiring national courts to take into account, of their own motion, including at the stage of the application for the issue of an order for payment, the unfairness of a term stipulated between a supplier and a consumer, taking into account in particular (i) that in the Greek legal system, in accordance with Articles 623, 624, 628 and 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure (kodikas politikis dikonomias), not only does such a requirement not exist but, in addition, the order for payment is issued in ex parte proceedings, after a formal check of documents including the credit agreement, (ii) that the competence to issue an order for payment lies with a court of the Greek State and (iii) that the order for payment constitutes an immediately enforceable order, under which the supplier may, after three (3) days, initiate enforcement proceedings which are not subject to any suspension?

| 2. | Is Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 to be interpreted as establishing a procedural rule of public policy requiring national courts to refrain from issuing an order for payment where it is demonstrated by documentary evidence, before the court issuing the order for payment, that the claim arises from general contractual terms and conditions (GTC) which have already been held to be void, because they are unfair, by final judgments in injunction proceedings brought by consumer organisations against suppliers and which are listed in the ministerial decision Z1-798/25-06-2008 (FEK B 1353/11-07-2008), which contains a national register of unfair terms [as amended and supplemented by Ministerial Decision Z1-21/17-01-2011, which was deemed lawful by Decision No 1210/2010 of the Greek Council of State (Simvoulio tis Epikratias), after taking into account, first, Decisions No 1219/2001 and No 430/2005 of the Greek Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos), judgments No 5253/2003 and No 6291/2000 of the Athens Court of Appeal (Efeteio Athinon), judgments No 1119/2002 and No 1208/1998 of the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Athens Regional Court, sitting as a panel of several judges) which has the force of res judicata and judgment No 961/2007 of the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Athens Regional Court, sitting as a panel of several judges) which, in turn, has the force of res judicata and, secondly, the fact that the res judicata effects of those court decisions are of major public interest for the proper functioning of the market and for the protection of consumers (Article 10(2) of Law 2251/1994); it is by that ministerial decision that ‘the prohibition on the inclusion, in contracts concluded between credit institutions and consumers, of general contractual conditions which have been held to be unfair by judicial decisions rendered in legal proceedings brought by consumer organisations’ was decreed and that decision lists the GTCs that have been held to be void, because they are unfair, following collective legal proceedings brought by consumer organisations against banks considered as suppliers], taking into account in particular the fact that in Greece, the competence to issue an order for payment lies with courts — more precisely with the Eirinodikeia (justices of the peace) and Protodikeia (courts of first instance) — and the fact that the order for payment constitutes an immediately enforceable order, according to which the supplier may, after three days, initiate a enforcement proceedings which are not subject to any suspension? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 to be interpreted as establishing a procedural rule of public policy requiring national courts to refrain from issuing an order for payment where it is demonstrated by documentary evidence, before the court issuing the order for payment, that the claim arises from general contractual terms and conditions (GTC) which have already been held to be void, because they are unfair, by final judgments in injunction proceedings brought by consumer organisations against suppliers and which are listed in the ministerial decision Z1-798/25-06-2008 (FEK B 1353/11-07-2008), which contains a national register of unfair terms [as amended and supplemented by Ministerial Decision Z1-21/17-01-2011, which was deemed lawful by Decision No 1210/2010 of the Greek Council of State (Simvoulio tis Epikratias), after taking into account, first, Decisions No 1219/2001 and No 430/2005 of the Greek Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos), judgments No 5253/2003 and No 6291/2000 of the Athens Court of Appeal (Efeteio Athinon), judgments No 1119/2002 and No 1208/1998 of the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Athens Regional Court, sitting as a panel of several judges) which has the force of res judicata and judgment No 961/2007 of the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Athens Regional Court, sitting as a panel of several judges) which, in turn, has the force of res judicata and, secondly, the fact that the res judicata effects of those court decisions are of major public interest for the proper functioning of the market and for the protection of consumers (Article 10(2) of Law 2251/1994); it is by that ministerial decision that ‘the prohibition on the inclusion, in contracts concluded between credit institutions and consumers, of general contractual conditions which have been held to be unfair by judicial decisions rendered in legal proceedings brought by consumer organisations’ was decreed and that decision lists the GTCs that have been held to be void, because they are unfair, following collective legal proceedings brought by consumer organisations against banks considered as suppliers], taking into account in particular the fact that in Greece, the competence to issue an order for payment lies with courts — more precisely with the Eirinodikeia (justices of the peace) and Protodikeia (courts of first instance) — and the fact that the order for payment constitutes an immediately enforceable order, according to which the supplier may, after three days, initiate a enforcement proceedings which are not subject to any suspension?

| 3. | Are Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of Directive 93/13 to be interpreted as meaning that the res judicata resulting from the success of injunction proceedings brought by consumer organisations against suppliers requires, as an additional condition for its effects to be extended erga omnes (pursuant to Article 10(20) of Law 2251/1994), the same parties and the same facts and law — as required by Article 324 of the Code of Civil Procedure (kodikas politikis dikonomias) — so that the res judicata resulting from the success of injunction proceedings may not be extended or applied to any case in which a national court is seised of an action brought by a consumer against a supplier ? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of Directive 93/13 to be interpreted as meaning that the res judicata resulting from the success of injunction proceedings brought by consumer organisations against suppliers requires, as an additional condition for its effects to be extended erga omnes (pursuant to Article 10(20) of Law 2251/1994), the same parties and the same facts and law — as required by Article 324 of the Code of Civil Procedure (kodikas politikis dikonomias) — so that the res judicata resulting from the success of injunction proceedings may not be extended or applied to any case in which a national court is seised of an action brought by a consumer against a supplier ?

---

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

---