Case C-426/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 19 October 2001 in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, consumer protection, contract, cost of borrowing, interpretation of the law

C 3/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Question 1

When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 (1) on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992(2), is the ‘body respon-
sible for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8)
of Directive 89/665/EEC required to take into account the
prospects of success of an application for an unlawful decision
of a contracting authority to be set aside pursuant
to
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?

Must Directive 87/102/EEC (1) and Directive 90180/EEC (2) be
interpreted as having as their sole purpose consumer protec-
tion or, as aiming, beyond that, at the organization and
regulation of the single market in credit?

Must the obligation to interpret those directives in conformity
with their purpose, and at least in way protective of consumers,
prompt the national court to prefer an interpretation of its law
that would allow it to raise, of its own motion, issues of
irregularity affecting consumer credit agreements, such as a
failure to indicate in writing the percentage rate of charge, in
actions for payment of a debt brought before it by credit
institutions?

Question 2

When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, is the ‘body responsible
for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of
Directive 89/665/EEC entitled to take into account the pros-
pects of success of an application for an unlawful decision of
a
to
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?

contracting authority to be

set aside pursuant

(1) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
visions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ
L 42 of 12.2.1987, p. 48).

(2) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending
Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
lations and administrative provisions of
the Member States
concerning consumer credit (OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14).

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti v
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Case C-427/01)

(2002/C 3/28)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 19 October
2001 in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v
Christian Giner

(Case C-426/01)

(2002/C 3/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance
(District Court), Vienne, of 19 October 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 29 October 2001 for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner
on the following questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
(Federal Social Court) of 2 August 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 30 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti. v
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour Office) on the follow-
ing questions:

1.

Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey
to be interpreted as meaning that there is also a restriction
on the freedom to provide services where a Member State
of the Community abolishes an existing work permit
exemption for Turkish drivers engaged in international
haulage who are employed by a (Turkish) employer with
its seat in Turkey?