Case C-168/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Milena Tomášová v Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement containing an unfair term — Enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with that term — Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to a national court — Conditions of engagement — Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law)
Date: 2016-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, indemnification, infringement of EU law, liability of the State, unfair terms of contract








C_2016350EN.01000702.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/7





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Milena Tomášová v Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o.
(Case C-168/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Credit agreement containing an unfair term - Enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with that term - Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to a national court - Conditions of engagement - Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law))
(2016/C 350/09)
Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Milena Tomášová

Defendants: Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o.

Intervening parties: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Member State liability for damage caused to individuals as a result of a breach of EU law by a decision of a national court may be incurred only where that decision is made by a court of that Member State adjudicating at last instance, which it is for the referring court to determine in respect of the main proceedings. If that is the case, a decision by that national court adjudicating at last instance may constitute a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, capable of giving rise to that liability, only where, by that decision, that court manifestly infringed the applicable law or where that infringement takes place despite the existence of well-established Court case-law on the matter.
It cannot be concluded that a national court which, prior to the judgment of 4 June 2009 in Pannon GSM (C-243/08, EU:C:2009:350), failed, in the context of proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award upholding a claim for payment of debts under a contractual term which must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair, although it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose, manifestly disregarded the Court’s case-law on the matter and, therefore, committed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law.










2.


The rules regarding reparation for damage caused by a breach of EU law, such as those concerning the assessment of such damage or the relationship between a claim for that reparation and other remedies which could be available, are determined by the national law of each Member State, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.






(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.