17.1.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/15
Pleas in law and main arguments The appellant puts forward a plea in law entitled ‘INFRINGEMENT OF EU LAW BY THE GENERAL COURT — ERROR IN LAW AND ERROR IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE FACTS — MANIFEST ERROR OF ASSESSMENT — DENATURATION OF A JUDGMENT’, which she sub-divides into two chapters, the first relating to the plea of illegality raised at first instance and the General Court’s analysis of the first plea, and the second relating to the merits and the General Court’s analysis of the third plea.
In the first chapter, the appellant raises a plea of illegality and claims that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the IMSM do not respect the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
The arguments put forward by the appellant in the second chapter concern the General Court’s assessment of the errors of fact alleged against the Secretary-General.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 13 September 2021 — I.S., K.S. v YYY.
S.A. (Case C-570/21) (2022/C 24/20) Language of the case: Polish Referring court Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: I.S., K.S. Defendant: YYY.
S.A.
Questions referred 1.
Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) and its recitals be interpreted as not precluding the inclusion in the definition of ‘consumer’ of a person engaged in business activity who entered into an agreement concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency together with a joint-borrower who is not engaged in business activity, which loan is intended to be used partly for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and partly for purposes unconnected with his or her business activity, and not only where business use is so marginal as to be negligible in the overall context of the agreement in question, and where it is irrelevant that the non-business element is predominant?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, 2.
Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and its recitals be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘consumer’ defined in that provision extends to a person who, at the time the agreement was signed, was engaged in business activity, whereas the other borrower was not engaged in any business activity, and subsequently those two persons entered into an agreement with a bank concerning a loan indexed to a foreign currency where the loan principal was used in part for the business purposes of one of the borrowers and in part for non-business purposes, where business use is not marginal and is not negligible in the overall context of the loan agreement, and where the non-business element is predominant, and given that if the loan principal had not been used for business purposes it would not have been possible to grant the loan for non-business purposes?
(1)
OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.