Case C-336/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2020 — QY v Bank 11 für Privatkunden und Handel GmbH
Date: 2020-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, deadline for payment, interest, redemption, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2020423EN.01001501.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2020 — QY v Bank 11 für Privatkunden und Handel GmbH
(Case C-336/20)
(2020/C 423/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Ravensburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: QY

Defendant: Bank 11 für Privatkunden und Handel GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Statutory presumption in accordance with Article 247(6), second paragraph, third sentence, and Article 247(12), first paragraph, third sentence, of the Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Introductory Law to the German Civil Code, ‘the EGBGB’)






(a)


Inasmuch as they state that contract terms which conflict with the requirements of Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) satisfy the requirements of Article 247(6), second paragraph, first and second sentences, of the EGBGB, and the requirements laid down in Article 247(12), first paragraph, second sentence, point 2(b), of the EGBGB, are Article 247(6), second paragraph, third sentence, and Article 247(12), first paragraph, third sentence, of the EGBGB incompatible with Article 10(2)(p) and Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC?
If so:










(b)


Does it follow from EU law, in particular from Article 10(2)(p) and Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC, that, inasmuch as they state that contract terms which conflict with the requirements of Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC satisfy the requirements of Article 247(6), second paragraph, first and second sentences, of the EGBGB, and the requirements laid down in Article 247(12), first paragraph, second sentence, point 2(b), of the EGBGB, Article 247(6), second paragraph, third sentence, and Article 247(12), first paragraph, third sentence, of the EGBGB must be disapplied?




If the answer to Question 1(b) is in the negative:










2.


Mandatory information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC






(a)


Is Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the type of credit, if the credit agreement is a linked credit agreement, information must be provided to that effect?
If not:










(b)


Is Article 10(2)(l) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments as applicable at the time of the conclusion of the credit agreement must be specified as an absolute number or, at the very least, that the current reference interest rate (in this case, the base rate in accordance with Paragraph 247 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, ‘the BGB’)), from which the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments is obtained by adding a premium (in this case, a premium of five percentage points in accordance with Paragraph 288(1), second sentence, of the BGB), must be specified as an absolute number?
If not:










(c)


Forfeiture of the right of withdrawal in accordance with Article 14(1), first sentence, of Directive 2008/48/EC:
If any of the above Questions 2(a) to (c) is answered in the affirmative:










(d)


Is Article 14(1), second sentence, point (b), of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the period of withdrawal does not begin until the information required under Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC has been provided fully and correctly, regardless of whether a missing or incorrect item of information is capable of affecting the consumer’s ability to assess the scope of his obligation?




If the above Question 1(a) and/or one of Questions 2(a) to (c) is answered in the affirmative:










3.


Right of the single judge to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267(2) TFEU






(a)


Is the right of withdrawal in accordance with Article 14(1), first sentence, of Directive 2008/48/EC subject to forfeiture?
If so:










(b)


Is forfeiture a time limit on the right of withdrawal which must be regulated by an act of parliament?
If not:










(c)


Does a plea of forfeiture depend, from a subjective standpoint, on the consumer knowing that his right of withdrawal continued to exist or, at least, on his ignorance being ascribed to gross negligence?
If not:










(d)


Does the creditor’s facility to provide the consumer subsequently with the information required under Article 14(1), second sentence, point (b), of Directive 2008/48/EC and thus trigger the period of withdrawal preclude the application of the rules of forfeiture in good faith?
If not:










(e)


Is this compatible with the established principles by which the German courts are bound under the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) and, if so, how are German legal practitioners to resolve a conflict between the binding prescripts of international law and the prescripts of the Court of Justice of the European Union?




Irrespective of the answers to Questions 1 to 3 above:










4.


Right of the single judge to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267(2) TFEU
Inasmuch as it also refers to orders for reference in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, is Paragraph 348a(2), point 1, of the Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure) incompatible with the right conferred on the national courts to request a preliminary ruling pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and must it therefore be disapplied to orders for reference?






(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).