Case C-264/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance de Vienne by judgment of that Court of 5 July 2002 in the case of S.A. Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain Sachithanathan
Date: 2002-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, consumer protection, contract, cost of borrowing, interpretation of the law, judge

28.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 233/15

Thus, the criticisms made by the Court of First Instance
concerning the ineffectiveness of the legal remedies conferred
on individuals by the Community legal order are without any
foundation in law.

( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001
establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in
ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d,
e and associated conditions for the control of activities of fishing
vessels (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance de Vienne by judgment of that Court of 5 July
2002 in the case of S.A. Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain
Sachithanathan

(Case C-264/02)

(2002/C 233/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance
de Vienne of 5 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
18 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A.
Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain Sachithanathan on the
following questions:

— On a proper construction of Council Directive 87/102/
EC (1) of 22 December 1986 and Council Directive 90/
88/EC (2) of 22 February 1990 must the national court
uphold the interpretation of its law which requires lenders
of consumer credit to inform the consumer-borrower in
writing of the current annual percentage charge before
each extension of an agreement for credit renewable in
instalments at an interest rate that is stipulated to be
variable?

— On a proper construction of those directives must the
national court uphold the interpretation of
its law
which requires lenders of consumer credit to inform the
consumer of the clause concerning the variation of that
annual percentage charge before the extension of that
agreement?

— On a proper construction of those directives is the
national court to uphold the interpretation of its law
which authorises it to allow, without any time-limit, a
plea of illegality vitiating the formation or extension of a
consumer credit agreement, such as that arising from
failure to state the annual percentage charge, raised by
the consumer or by the court of its own motion, in a
dispute arising from an action for payment brought by
the lender?

— If not, on a proper construction of those directives is the
court to uphold the interpretation of its law according to
which it is authorised to set aside a provision of its
national law which prohibits the consumer or the court
of its own motion from raising a plea of illegality
vitiating the formation or extension of a consumer credit
agreement after a time-limit which derogates from the
in so far as it constitutes an exceptional
general law,
restriction on the right of action of the consumer and
undermines the effectiveness of consumer protection?

(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, 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).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione by order of that Court of 11 April 2002 in
the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against Assitalia SpA

(Case C-265/02)

(2002/C 233/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 11 April 2002,
received at
for a
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against
Assitalia SpA on the following question:

the Court Registry on 18 July 2002,

‘Is Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
1968, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the
Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
accession of
the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden, to be interpreted as subsuming
under the expression “matters relating to a contract” the
obligation which a guarantor who paid customs duties under
a guarantee obtained by the forwarding agent seeks to enforce
in legal proceedings by way of subrogation to the financial
authorities and by way of recourse against the third-party
debtor who is the owner of the imported goods but was
unconnected with the guarantee?’