Case C-667/24, AMCO: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 11 October 2024 – YP v AMCO – Asset Management Company SpA and IFIS NPL Servicing SpA
Date: 2024-10-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, guarantee, injunction, judicial review, unfair terms of contract








C_202500150EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/150


13.1.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 11 October 2024 – YP v AMCO – Asset Management Company SpA and IFIS NPL Servicing SpA


(Case C-667/24, AMCO)

(C/2025/150)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Brindisi

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: YP

Respondent: AMCO – Asset Management Company SpA and IFIS NPL Servicing SpA

Questions referred







1.


Under what conditions, if any, do Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a legal system, such as the Italian national legal system, that prevents the court responsible for enforcement (in the context of an application for suspension and, consequently, for a summary examination of the merits or during the main proceedings in an objection to enforcement) from carrying out a review of the content of an enforceable judicial instrument that has acquired the force of res judicata, of its own motion or at the request of the debtor, and from establishing the existence of unconscionable (that is to say, unfair) terms, including solely as an incidental, summary issue, and/or from granting a period for lodging a late objection in order to obtain a declaration from the court examining the merits that a contract contains terms that are unconscionable?
That question is asked in the context of the following circumstances:






(a)


an objection to an order for payment has been lodged on grounds other than the unconscionable nature of the terms of the guarantee agreement and that objection has been settled by a judgment which has acquired the force of res judicata (which implicitly establishes that the agreement does not contain any terms that are unconscionable);










(b)


there was no review of unfairness during the order for payment or objection proceedings;










(c)


nor had the person to whom the order for payment was addressed been informed, when that order was drawn up and issued, of the possibility of benefiting from consumer protection.














2.


In that situation, is it relevant, if only for the sake of completeness, for the purposes of the aforementioned assessment of whether national legislation is compatible with EU law, that the consumer became aware of her status after the first objection was lodged in a timely manner and that that consumer was precluded from gaining that awareness by the law as it was applied at the time (which prevented her from being classified as a consumer solely on the ground that she was a guarantor, without making a distinction on the basis of the objective purpose of the guarantee)?






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


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/150/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)