EN
C 207/4
Official Journal of the European Union
23.5.2022
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Lombard Pénzügyi és Lízing Zrt.
Defendant: PN Operative part 1.
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the effectiveness of its provisions cannot, in the absence of any default rule under national law governing such a situation, be ensured only by a non-binding opinion of the supreme court of the Member State concerned indicating to the lower courts the approach to be taken in order to declare a contract valid or effective as between the parties where that contract cannot continue in existence because of the unfairness of a term relating to its main subject matter. 2.
Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the competent national court from deciding to restore the parties to a loan contract to the situation they would have been in if that contract had not been concluded on the ground that a term of that contract relating to its main subject matter must be declared unfair under that directive, it being understood that, if that restoration proves to be impossible, it is for that court to ensure that the consumer is ultimately in the situation he or she would have been in if the term found to be unfair had never existed.
(1)
OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2022 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Case C-687/20) (1) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Agglomerations, major roads and major railways — Article 7(2) — Strategic noise maps — Article 8(2) — Action plans — Article 10(2) — Annex VI — Information provided by the strategic noise maps — Summaries of action plans — Failure to communicate to the European Commission within the periods prescribed) (2022/C 207/05) Language of the case: Portuguese Parties Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents) Defendant: Republic of Portugal (represented by: M. Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa, H. Almeida, J. Reis Silva and L.
Inez Fernandes, acting as Agents) Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1.
Declares that the Portuguese Republic, first, in failing to draw up strategic noise maps for the major roads PT_a_rd00410, PT_a_rd00458, PT_a_rd00460, PT_a_rd00462 and PT_a_rd00633 or action plans for the agglomerations of Amador and Porto and for the major roads and major railways referred to in the annex to the present judgment, and, second, in failing to communicate to the European Commission the information provided by those maps or the summaries of those action plans, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 7(2), Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI to that directive; 2.
Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
(1)
OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.