Case C-12/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 6 January 2022 — UR v 365.bank a.s.
Date: 2022-01-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer information, contract terms, cost of borrowing, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2022148EN.01001301.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 6 January 2022 — UR v 365.bank a.s.
(Case C-12/22)
(2022/C 148/19)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UR

Defendant: 365.bank a.s.

Questions referred







1.


Do the details specified in the consumer credit agreement concluded on 21 December 2016, as quoted in the text of the present order, constitute a clear and concise specification of the type of credit, as required by Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC? (1)











2.


Do the details specified in the consumer credit agreement concluded on 21 December 2016, as quoted in the text of the present order, constitute a clear and concise specification of the duration of the credit agreement, as required by Article 10(2)(c) of Directive 2008/48/EC?










3.


Do the details specified in the consumer credit agreement concluded on 21 December 2016, as quoted in the text of the present order, constitute a clear and concise specification of the type of credit, as required by Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC, and






—


must a consumer credit agreement contain the mathematical formula for calculating the APRC, together with the variables substituted, as well the calculation itself,










—


is it sufficient for the consumer credit agreement to contain in the text thereof the variables necessary to calculate the APRC, or must those variables be stated again with the express indication that they are the assumptions for calculating the APRC?














4.


Can Directive 93/13/EEC (2) be interpreted as requiring national legislation or practice to oblige a court to declare a contractual term unfair even after the contractual relationship has ended, as in the present case?










5.


Is a judicial practice which, in the case of an alleged absence of a compulsory requirement of consumer credit agreement, presumes that that fact was already known to the consumer at the time the credit agreement was signed, in particular where the consumer separately confirmed that he or she had acquainted him or herself with the credit agreement by signing other related credit documents (for example standard consumer credit information form, the list of documents received, etc.) contrary to Council Directive 93/13/EEC as a whole, and in particular the fifth recital thereof (whereas, generally speaking, consumers do not know the rules of law which, in Member States other than their own, govern contracts for the sale of goods or services; whereas this lack of awareness may deter them from direct transactions for the purchase of goods or services in another Member State)?










6.


Is it contrary to the principle of consumer protection and the principle of effectiveness for national law to provide for a subjective limitation period for bringing an action for the recovery of unjust enrichment obtained by the supplier at the expense of the consumer, but also for an objective limitation period based on a neutral criterion (the occurrence of unjust enrichment), so that the determination of the point at which the limitation period begins is not left exclusively to the consumer’s assertion and thus without the supplier having any real possibility of defending him or herself by pleading limitation?










7.


Is it compatible with the principle of consumer protection and the principle of effectiveness for any deficiency in a consumer credit agreement drawn up by a supplier to be regarded automatically as being the result of a deliberate fault on the part of the supplier?










8.


Is the principle of effectiveness in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union cited below to be construed as meaning that the limitation period for unjust enrichment obtained by reason of the interest-free and charge-free nature of the credit on account of a defect, begins only from the time the court rules on such a defect (for example by determining the interest-free and charge-free nature of the credit)?










9.


From what time does the principle of effectiveness, as applied in the judgments of the Court of Justice cited below, require the limitation period to begin?






(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).

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