Case C-92/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 25 February 2014 — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL
Date: 2014-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, consumer credit, consumer protection, guarantee, interest, loan, real property, right of establishment, right to justice, unfair terms of contract








C_2014142EN.01002101.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 25 February 2014 — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL
(Case C-92/14)
2014/C 142/29
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Câmpulung

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran

Defendant: SC Suport Colect SRL

Questions referred







1.


Are Council Directive 93/13/EC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2008/48/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC applicable also to a credit agreement concluded on 5 October 2006, before Romania acceded to the European Union, but whose effects are still produced now, in that the terms thereof form the subject of enforcement at present, following successive assignments of the debt for which it makes provision?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, can terms such as those concerning ‘service of the borrower’s debt’, that refer to the existence of delays in payment on the part of the debtor, and those relating to the increase in the rate of interest after one year, after which the rate is the variable reference rate of the Banca Comercială Română, posted at the bank’s headquarters, increased by 1,90 [percent], be considered to be unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?










3.


Does the principle of effective judicial protection of the rights that individuals derive from EU law, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a provision of national law, such as that laid down in Article 120 of Emergency Decree No 99 of December 2006 on credit institutions and capital adequacy, which recognises the enforceability of a bank credit agreement concluded by private agreement and without allowing the terms thereof to be negotiated with the debtor, under which, with brief verification and after obtaining authorisation for enforcement in a non-contentious procedure, and with limited scope for the court to assess the amount of the debt, a bailiff may seize the debtor’s assets










4.


Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State, such as Article 372 et seq. of the former Code of Civil Procedure, from allowing a creditor to seek enforcement of a debt deriving from unfair contractual terms by seizing an asset charged as security through the sale of the immovable property, notwithstanding the consumer’s objection, without an independent judge’s carrying out an examination of the contractual terms?










5.


Does the existence in national law of a provision such as Article 120 of Emergency Decree No 99 of December 2006 on credit institutions and capital adequacy, which recognises the enforceability of the bank credit agreement, prejudice the right to freedom of establishment laid down in Article 49 TFEU and the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 45 TFEU in that it discourages citizens of the Union from establishing themselves in a State in which the same value as an enforceable instrument represented by a judgment is conferred on a bank agreement concluded by a private institution?










6.


If the answer to the preceding questions is in the affirmative, can the national court raise of its own motion the non-enforceability of such an instrument pursuant to which the enforcement of a debt stated in a contract is carried out?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.