C 158/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
11.4.2022
Question referred Do Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) preclude a rule of national law under which the consequence of granting authorisation conferring a right to stay in the context of the examination of an application for leave to remain for the purpose of medical treatment, considered to be admissible in the light of the criteria set out above, is that the third-country national is entitled to stay, even temporarily and irregularly, during the examination of that application and that the return decision previously adopted in an asylum procedure, with which the grant of such authorisation is incompatible, is impliedly withdrawn?
(1)
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2022 — M.B., U.B., M.B. v X S.A. (Case C-6/22) (2022/C 158/05) Language of the case: Polish Referring court Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Woli w Warszawie
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: M.B., U.B., M.B. Defendant: X S.A.
Questions referred 1.
Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in the light of its objective of protecting consumers against unfair terms in contracts with sellers or suppliers, be interpreted as meaning that, once a contract is declared invalid by a court under the rules of that directive, that directive, along with the protection of the consumer, ceases to apply and the rules governing settlement for the consumer and the seller or supplier must be sought under the national contract law governing the settlement of an invalid contract? 2.
In the light of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, where a court finds that the contractual term in question is unlawful and that the contract is not capable of continuing in existence after that term has been removed, in the absence of an agreement by the parties to fill the gap with clauses in accordance with their wishes and in the absence of supplementary provisions (directly applicable to the contract in the absence of an agreement by the parties), must that court declare the contract invalid on the basis of the wishes of the consumer who sought that declaration, or must the court examine, of its own motion, going beyond the form of order sought by the parties, the financial situation of the consumer in order to determine whether declaring the contract invalid would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences? 3.
Must Article 6 of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, if the court comes to the conclusion that declaring the contract invalid would be particularly unfavourable to the consumer and, despite having been encouraged to do so, the parties fail to reach an agreement on the fulfilment of the contract, the court may, taking into account the objective interest of the consumer, fill the gap in the contract, created after the unfair terms have been ‘removed’ from it, not with rules of national law which are supplementary within the meaning of the judgment in Case C-260/18, that is to say, rules which are directly applicable to the gap in the contract, but with specific provisions of national law which can be applied to the contract in question mutatis mutandis or by analogy and which reflect a rule of national contract law?
(1)
OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.