Case C-610/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 29 December 2014  — Helena Kolcunová v Provident Financial s. r. o.
Date: 2014-12-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, administrative transparency, consumer credit, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract








C_2015118EN.01001301.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 29 December 2014 — Helena Kolcunová v Provident Financial s. r. o.
(Case C-610/14)
(2015/C 118/17)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Helena Kolcunová

Defendant: Provident Financial s. r. o.

Questions referred







1.


Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13’) 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 made by the consumer, constitutes the main subject-matter of performance in the case of a consumer credit or is it rather the main subject-matter of a specific contract?










2.


Must Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) 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 (3) 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?










3.


Must Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that it suffices, to satisfy the requirement of transparency of an ancillary service (assuming that it is an ancillary service and not the price or the payment for that credit) for which an administrative charge is paid, that the price of that administrative service (the administrative charge) is plain and intelligible, even if the object of performance of that administrative service is not defined?










4.


Must Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that an administrative charge is included in the calculation of the APR signifies that this constitutes the price or payment of the credit and therefore precludes the court from exercising a power of review of such an administrative charge for the purposes of that directive?










5.


If the answer to Question 3 is that the object of the administrative service for which an administrative charge is to be paid is sufficiently transparent, in such a case does the administrative service, with all administrative work and functions coming into consideration, constitute the main subject-matter of the consumer credit?










6.


Must Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of that directive, the payment or price of the credit covers not only the interest but also the creditor’s charges (whether agreed to in the contract, in the general terms of sale or as part of the fees) and that no review can therefore be carried out of the proportionality of those charges in relation to the service provided for in return, because those charges constitute the payment or price of the credit?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.

(3)  OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17.