# C_2023278EN.01001401.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — UG v SC Raiffeisen Bank SA

(Case C-176/23, Raiffeisen Bank)

(2023/C 278/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureş

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and applicant at first instance: UG

Respondent and defendant at first instance: SC Raiffeisen Bank SA

Questions referred

| (1) | When applying the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) transposed into national law by the provisions of Article 3(2) of Legea nr. 193/2000, republicată, privind clauzele abuzive în contractele încheiate între profesioniști și consumatori (Law No 193/2000, republished, on unfair terms in contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers), in the light of, in particular, the twelfth and thirteenth recitals of that directive, but also taking into account the provisions of Articles 80 and 81 of Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului (OUG) nr. 50/2010 privind contractele de credit pentru consumatori (Government Emergency Order No 50/2010 concerning consumer credit agreements; ‘OUG No 50/2010’), must those provisions be interpreted as not precluding national courts from also examining suspicions concerning the unfair nature of contractual terms stipulated in supplementary agreements to credit agreements concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers before the aforementioned act having the force of law came into effect, that is to say, pursuant to the provisions of Article 95 of OUG No 50/2010, regardless of whether those terms have been expressly accepted by the consumer in the manner provided for by the provisions of Article 40(1) of OUG No 50/2010 or whether they have been considered tacitly accepted by law in the manner provided for by the provisions of Article 40(3) of OUG No 50/2010? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

When applying the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) transposed into national law by the provisions of Article 3(2) of Legea nr. 193/2000, republicată, privind clauzele abuzive în contractele încheiate între profesioniști și consumatori (Law No 193/2000, republished, on unfair terms in contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers), in the light of, in particular, the twelfth and thirteenth recitals of that directive, but also taking into account the provisions of Articles 80 and 81 of Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului (OUG) nr. 50/2010 privind contractele de credit pentru consumatori (Government Emergency Order No 50/2010 concerning consumer credit agreements; ‘OUG No 50/2010’), must those provisions be interpreted as not precluding national courts from also examining suspicions concerning the unfair nature of contractual terms stipulated in supplementary agreements to credit agreements concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers before the aforementioned act having the force of law came into effect, that is to say, pursuant to the provisions of Article 95 of OUG No 50/2010, regardless of whether those terms have been expressly accepted by the consumer in the manner provided for by the provisions of Article 40(1) of OUG No 50/2010 or whether they have been considered tacitly accepted by law in the manner provided for by the provisions of Article 40(3) of OUG No 50/2010?

| (2) | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, the [referring] court also asks: would it be at odds [with the possibility referred to in Question 1], in light of the background set out above and the circumstances of the dispute pending before it, for there to be a line of case-law of the national courts establishing that express acceptance of a supplementary agreement drawn up in the manner provided for by Article 40(1) of OUG No 50/2010 and pursuant to the provisions of Article 95 thereof automatically leads to the conclusion that [that supplementary agreement] has been negotiated and, consequently, there can be no examination of any suspicions that the terms stipulated within it are unfair? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, the [referring] court also asks: would it be at odds [with the possibility referred to in Question 1], in light of the background set out above and the circumstances of the dispute pending before it, for there to be a line of case-law of the national courts establishing that express acceptance of a supplementary agreement drawn up in the manner provided for by Article 40(1) of OUG No 50/2010 and pursuant to the provisions of Article 95 thereof automatically leads to the conclusion that [that supplementary agreement] has been negotiated and, consequently, there can be no examination of any suspicions that the terms stipulated within it are unfair?

---

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

---