Case C-598/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 28 September 2021 — SP, CI v Všeobecná úverová banka, a.s.
Date: 2021-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: auction sale, consumer credit, consumer protection, deadline for payment, mortgage, protection of privacy, real property, redemption, right to justice, unfair terms of contract








C_2022011EN.01001601.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 28 September 2021 — SP, CI v Všeobecná úverová banka, a.s.
(Case C-598/21)
(2022/C 11/22)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SP, CI

Defendant: Všeobecná úverová banka, a.s.

Questions referred







A.


Does Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in conjunction with Articles 7 and 38 thereof, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms’), Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices’) and the principle of effectiveness of EU law preclude legislation such as Paragraph 53(9) and Paragraph 565 of the Občiansky zákonník (Slovak Civil Code), pursuant to which in the event of accelerated repayment no account is taken of the proportionality of that transaction, in particular the gravity of the infringement by the consumer of his or her obligations in relation to the amount of the credit and its term?










B.


If the answer to Question A. is in the negative (it is not precluded), the national court asks the following questions:






B.1


Does Article 47 the Charter, in conjunction with Articles 7 and 38 thereof, Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms, Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices and the principle of effectiveness of EU law preclude case-law which does not preclude the enforcement as to its substance of a lien by means of a private auction of immovable property, consisting of the home of consumers or of other persons and which simultaneously does not have regard to the gravity of the infringement by the consumers of their obligation in relation to the amount of the credit and its term, even where there is another way in which the credit provider’s claim may be satisfied through judicial enforcement, in the context of which the sale of the home over which the lien has been granted does not take precedence?










B.2


Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted as meaning that the protection of consumers against unfair commercial practices in the granting of credit to consumers extends to all forms of satisfaction of the credit provider’s claim, including the agreement on a new loan granted for repayment of the obligations arising from an earlier loan?










B.3


Is Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted as meaning that the conduct of a credit provider who repeatedly grants credit to a consumer who is incapable of repaying the credit such that the result is a chain of credit, which the supplier does not in reality pay to the consumer but itself receives for the repayment of the previous loans and the total costs on the credit, is also regarded as an unfair commercial practice?










B.4


Must Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (‘Directive 2008/48/EEC on consumer credit’), read in conjunction with recital 10 thereof, be interpreted as not excluding the application of that directive even in the case of a loan having all the characteristics of consumer credit, where the purpose of the loan has not been agreed upon, the entirety of which loan, with the exception of an insignificant part thereof, the credit provider used to ensure payment of previous consumer loans and as security for which a lien over immovable property was agreed upon?










B.5


Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-377/14 of 21 April 2016, Radlinger and Radlingerová, ECLI:EU:C:2016:283 to be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to a loan agreement granted to a consumer where, under that agreement, part of the credit granted was designated for the repayment of the credit provider’s costs?










(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

(3)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66