Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria

(Case C‑167/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/CEE — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has previously ruled or to which the answer can clearly be deduced from the case-law — Declaration that the term is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question manifestly inadmissible)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 30-38)

2. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Aim (Council Directive 93/13) (see para. 40)

3. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 — Assessment of unfair nature by the national court — Criteria (Council Directive 93/13, Recital 16 and Arts 3(1) and (5)) (see para. 41)

4. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Finding that a term is unfair — Scope — National legislation allowing a national court which finds that an unfair term is void to revise its content — Not permissible (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 44, 45)

5. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Finding that a term is unfair — Scope — National law enabling the national court declaring an unfair term to be invalid to substitute for it a supplementary provision of national law — Lawfulness (Council Directive 93/13, art. 6, § 1) (see paras 46-48)

6. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Declaration that a term is unfair in part — Scope — Maintaining the part of the term that is not unfair, entailing an amendment of its content — Not permissible — Replacement of an unfair term with a provision of national law by the national court — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Directive 93/13, Arts 6 and 7) (see paras 49-54, operative part)

Operative part

Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, on the one hand, as precluding an accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement regarded as unfair being maintained in part, entailing the removal, by the national court, of the elements making it unfair. In contrast, on the other, those articles do not preclude the national court from remedying the invalidity of such an unfair term, the wording of which is based on a legislative provision applicable by agreement between the parties to the contract, by substituting the new wording of that legislative provision introduced after the conclusion of the contract, where the contract at issue cannot stand without the removed unfair term and the annulment of that contract in its entirety exposes the consumer to particularly detrimental consequences.

( 1 ) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.