Case C-372/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 1 August 2014  — Provident Financial s.r.o. v Zdeněk Sobotka
Date: 2014-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, judicial review, redemption, restriction on competition, unfair terms of contract








C_2014380EN.01000201.xml










27.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 1 August 2014 — Provident Financial s.r.o. v Zdeněk Sobotka
(Case C-372/14)
2014/C 380/02
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Provident Financial s.r.o.

Defendant: Zdeněk Sobotka

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) be interpreted as meaning that conduct of the provider of the consumer credit consisting in presenting contractual terms to the consumer so as to create the formal impression that it is possible to choose an additional service of ensuring repayment instalments of the credit, and in reality exerting unreasonable influence on the consumer to accept the additional service, is to be regarded as an unfair commercial practice?










2.


Must the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive be interpreted as meaning that conduct of the creditor consisting in presenting contractual terms to the consumer in such a way as to provide the consumer with a statement of the annual percentage rate of charge (APR) which does not include the costs of an additional service is to be regarded as an unfair commercial practice?










3.


Must the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive be interpreted as meaning that conduct of the creditor consisting, in the consumer credit market, in requiring from consumers a substantially higher price for an ancillary service than the actual costs of such an ancillary service is to be regarded as an unfair commercial practice, and is the requirement of transparency of the total cost of a consumer credit thus circumvented if the costs of the ancillary service are not part of the APR?










4.


Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’) be interpreted as meaning that a service of ensuring the repayment of a consumer credit, the object of which is the cash acceptance of repayment instalments of the credit by the consumer, constitutes the main object of performance in the case of a consumer credit?










5.


Must Council Directive 87/102/EEC (3) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended and supplemented by Directive 98/7/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, be interpreted as meaning that the APR includes also a payment for cash acceptance of repayment instalments of the credit, or part of it, if the payment substantially exceeds the unavoidable costs of that ancillary service, and must Article 14 of that directive be interpreted as meaning that it is a circumvention of the concept of APR if the payment for an ancillary service substantially exceeds the costs of the ancillary service and the payment is not included in the APR?










6.


Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that it suffices, to satisfy the requirement of transparency of an ancillary service for which an administrative charge is paid, that the price of that administrative service (the administrative charge) is clear and comprehensible, even if the object of performance of that administrative service is not defined?










7.


Must Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that an administrative charge is included in the calculation of the APR precludes the court from exercising a power of review of such an administrative charge for the purposes of that directive?










8.


Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the mere amount of the administrative charge precludes review by the court for the purposes of that directive?










9.


If the answer to Question 6 is that the object of the administrative service for which the administrative charge is to be paid is sufficiently transparent, in such a case does the administration, with all possible administrative work and functions coming into consideration, constitute the principal object of the consumer credit?










10.


Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of that directive, it is relevant inter alia that in return for the charge for the ancillary service the consumer receives performance which is predominantly not in his interest but in the interest of the creditor of the consumer credit?






(1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(3)  OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.

(4)  OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17.