Case C-119/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA, acting through Sucursala Sibiu, OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, currency adjustment, exchange rate, foreign currency, loan, redemption, unfair terms of contract








C_2017178EN.01000701.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean v OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA, acting through Sucursala Sibiu, OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA
(Case C-119/17)
(2017/C 178/08)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Liviu Petru Lupean, Oana Andreea Lupean

Defendants: OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA, acting through Sucursala Sibiu, OTP BAAK NYRT, acting through OTPBANK SA

Questions referred







1.


May Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/[1]3/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, together with the principle in dubio pro consumer reflected in the second sentence of Article 5(1) of the directive, and the case-law of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the terms of a bank loan agreement:






—


which grants the borrower a sum of money expressed in a certain curruncy (foreign currency) and requires the borrower to repay the loan in the same currency (foreign currency) but it is apparent from the circumstances attending the conclusion and execution of the agreement that the funds were in fact provided to the borrower in an entirely different currency and that the accounting currency is used only virtually and for the purposes of calculation;










—


under which the entire risk of appreciation of the external and/or internal value of the accounting currency used virtually (the foreign currency) is borne by the borrower (consumer), even though the consumer drew down a different payment currency, being the currency actually used;










—


which does not explain clearly how the exchange mechanism for the accounting currency used virtually actually works, that is, in such a way that the consumer is able to assess, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the financial consequences of signing the agreement;










—


which imposes a pecuniary obligation on the consumer to pay, in respect of loan instalments, sums arising from the difference between the instalments calculated in the accounting currency made available virtually to the borrower and the instalments calculated in the payment currency actually used:




may be unfair?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, what are the criteria which the national court must apply for the purpose of assessing whether such terms may be unfair, with reference to the factual situation described in the first question?










3.


May the terms described in the first question be regarded as being unrelated to the main subject matter of the loan agreement?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 1993, p. 29).