do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-92/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, consumer protection, unfair terms of contract








C_2016156EN.01002701.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza
(Case C-92/16)
(2016/C 156/36)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

Defendants: Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contract may not subsist without the unfair term if the remaining contract imposes unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier?










2.


If a contract imposing unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier cannot continue in existence, would the national court be entitled to save the contract, in the interests of protecting the consumer, by applying a provision of supplementary law, or would it have to remedy the contract with a rule that is minimally tolerable for the seller or supplier?










3.


Does the fact that an early repayment clause is invalid because unfair allow the remaining contract to continue in existence within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13?










4.


May the consumer waive the protection regime provided for in Directive 93/13 before the court hearing the proceedings?










5.


Is a national procedural law, which makes the substantive rights and advantages enjoyed by a consumer subject to the condition that the latter submit to a specially expedited procedure but does not recognise such rights or advantages in other procedures, consistent with the principle of effectiveness laid down in Directive 93/13 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2)







(1)  
            OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  
            OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2016059EN.01000101.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 059/01)

Last publication


OJ C 48, 8.2.2016


Past publications


OJ C 38, 1.2.2016


OJ C 27, 25.1.2016


OJ C 16, 18.1.2016


OJ C 7, 11.1.2016


OJ C 429, 21.12.2015


OJ C 414, 14.12.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-601/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — J. N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection — Directive 2008/115/EC — Lawful residence — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 9 — Right to remain in a Member State — Directive 2013/33/EU — Point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) — Detention — Protection of national security or public order — Validity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 52 — Limitation — Proportionality)
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, foreign national, principle of proportionality, public safety, residence permit, right of asylum








C_2016145EN.01001301.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/13






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — J. N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-601/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2008/115/EC - Lawful residence - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State - Directive 2013/33/EU - Point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) - Detention - Protection of national security or public order - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Limitation - Proportionality))
(2016/C 145/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: J. N.

Respondent: Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


(1)  
            OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case T-843/14: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union
Date: 2016-02-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contractual liability, financial loss, indemnification








C_2016136EN.01004403.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/44





Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union
(Case T-843/14) (1)

(2016/C 136/62)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.