Operativ e part of the order
1.Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 Apr il 1993 on unfa ir terms in consumer contracts and the requirement of 
transparency of contractual terms in the context of a mor tgage loan must be inter prete d as not precluding national 
legislation and case-law which exemp t the seller or supplier from providing to the consumer , at the time of conclusion of 
a mor tgage loan agreement, information related to the previous fluctuations of the refere nce index over at least the 
previous two years by means of a comp arison with at least one different index such as the Euribor index, provid ed that 
that national legislation and case-law never theless enable the cour t to satisfy itself that the average consumer who is 
reasonably well informed and reasonably obser vant and circumspect was able, in the light of the publicly available and 
accessible information and, where appropr iate, the information provid ed by the seller or supplier , to understand the 
specific functioning of the method used for calculating the reference index and thus evaluate, on the basis of clear , 
intelligible criteria, the pote ntially significant economic consequences of such a term on his or her financial obliga tions.
2.Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and case-law which consider an 
absence of good faith on the part of the seller or supplier to be a necessar y precondition for any review of the cont ent of 
a non-transparent clause in a consumer contract. It is for the national cour t to determ ine whether , in the light of all the 
relevant circumstances of the main proceedings, the seller or supplier must be regarded as having acted in good faith by 
selecting an index provided for by law, and whether the term incor porating such an index is such as to create a 
significant imbalance, to the detr iment of the consumer , between the rights and obligations of the parties arising under 
the contract.
3.Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding the national cour t, where an unfa ir 
term setting a refere nce index for calculating the variable interest of a loan is null and void, from replacing that index 
with a statut ory index applicable in the absence of an agreement to the contrar y between the parties to the contract, 
where those two indices produce the same effects, provid ed that the conditions laid down in paragraph 67 of the 
judgment of 3 March 2020, Gómez del Moral Guasch (C-125/18, EU:C:2020:138) are met.
4.The sixteenth question referred for a preliminar y ruling by the Juzga do de Primera Instancia No 2 de Ibiza (Cour t of First 
Instance No 2, Ibiza, Spain) is manifestly inadmissible.
(1) Date of filing: 9/2/2021.
Appeal brought on 25 May 2021 by Giro Travel Company SRL against the judgment of the General 
Cour t (Ninth Chamber) deliv ered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-193/18, Andreas Stihl v EUIPO
(Case C-327/21 P)
(2022/C 37/04)
Language of the case: Engl ish
Parties
Appellant: Giro Travel Comp any SRL (represente d by: C. N. Frisch, avocat)
Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellect ual Proper ty Offi ce
By order of 26 November 2021, the Cour t of Justice (Chamber determi ning whether appeals may proceed) held that the 
appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Giro Travel Compan y SRL should bear its own costs. C 37/4 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union 24.1.2022