Case C-431/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Liberbank S.A. v Rafael Piris del Campo
Date: 2015-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, dealer, economic consequence, financial policy, interest, interest in bringing an action, retroactivity of a law, supplier, unfair terms of contract








C_2015354EN.01002101.xml










26.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 354/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Liberbank S.A. v Rafael Piris del Campo
(Case C-431/15)
(2015/C 354/24)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria — Section 4

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Liberbank S.A.

Other party to proceedings: Rafael Piris del Campo

Questions referred







1.


Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer and with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?










2.


Is the maintenance of the effects of a floor clause, inserted in a consumer contract, which is declared unfair and therefore null and void, compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?










3.


Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a floor clause in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void because it is considered that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy and good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?










4.


If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to assume, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term in a consumer contract, that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy or must that risk be assessed and evaluated in the light of the specific economic data from which it is inferred that granting retroactive effects to a ruling that an unfair term is null and void has macroeconomic consequences?










5.


In turn, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term inserted in a consumer contract, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 [on unfair terms in consumer contracts] to assess the risk of serious disruption to financial public policy in the light of the economic consequences of individual actions brought by a large number of consumers? Or, on the contrary, is that risk to be assessed in the light of the financial effect on the economy of the specific individual action brought by the consumer?










6.


If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to make an abstract assessment of the conduct of any seller or supplier in order to evaluate good faith?










7.


Or, on the contrary, must that good faith be examined and assessed in each specific case, in the light of the specific conduct of the seller or supplier when concluding the contract and inserting the unfair term in the contract, in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.