Order — ECLI:EU:C:2015:397
Date: 2015-06-11
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2013 – Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García (Case C-602/13) Language of the case: Spanish Referring court Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. Defendants: Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García Questions referred Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC 1 of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness[,] must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair contractual clause concerning default interest, declare that as a consequence any type of default interest is invalid, even that which may result from the subsidiary application of a national provision such as Article 1108 of the Civil Code, the Second Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013, in conjunction with Article 114 of the Law on mortgages, or Article 4 of Royal Decree-Law No 6/2012, and regard itself as not being bound by any recalculation which the professional may have carried out in accordance with the Second Transitional Provision of Law No 1/13? Must the Second Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013 be interpreted as meaning that it may not constitute an obstacle to the protection of consumer interests? Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness[,] must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair clause concerning accelerated repayment, declare that that clause does not form part of the contract and draw the conclusions inherent in such a finding[,] even where the professional has waited the minimum time provided for in the national provision? ____________ ____________ 1 OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.