C 472/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
12.12.2022
or, on the contrary, that, (c) in order for the exclusion from the scope of the analysis of the unfairness of a contractual term provided for in Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13 to be deemed to apply, it is sufficient to apply the general civil-law rule that contracts are supplemented by the law, without any specific reference being made to the corresponding legal rule set out in the relevant statutory provision? 2.
Is Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the special legal regime for the protection of consumer rights, it is excessive to take the view that the consumer is under an obligation to be familiar with the content of all the legal rules set out in the statutory provisions which supplement a contract, without the seller or supplier first providing the consumer with information to that effect?
(1)
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 23 September 2022 — Dublin 8 Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General (Case C-613/22) (2022/C 472/36) Language of the case: English Referring court High Court (Ireland)
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Dublin 8 Residents Association Defendants: An Bord Pleanála, Ireland, and the Attorney General Notice Party: DBTR-SCR1 Fund, a Sub-Fund of the CWTC Multi-Family ICAV
Questions referred 1.
Does article 11(1)(a) of directive 2011/92/EU (1) read in conjunction with article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or article 9(2) to (4) of the Aarhus Convention as approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC (2) have the effect that where an environmental NGO meets the test for standing set out in that provision, the NGO concerned is to be regarded as having sufficient capacity to seek a judicial remedy notwithstanding a general rule in the domestic law of a member state which precludes unincorporated associations from bringing legal proceedings? 2.
If Article 11(1)(a) of directive 2011/92/EU read in conjunction with article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or article 9(2) to (4) of the Aarhus Convention as approved on behalf of the European Community by Council decision 2005/370/EC does not have the effect set out in the first question in general circumstances, does it have that effect in circumstances where the domestic law of the member state concerned provides that an NGO that meets the test for standing conferred by article 1(2)(e) of the directive is thereby conferred with capacity to seek a judicial remedy? 3.
If article 11(1)(a) of directive 2011/92/EU read in conjunction with article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or article 9(2) to (4) of the Aarhus Convention as approved on behalf of the European Community by Council decision 2005/370/EC does not have the effect set out in the first question in general circumstances, does it have that effect in circumstances where the domestic law of the member state concerned and/or procedures adopted by the competent authority of the member state concerned have enabled an environmental NGO which would not otherwise have legal capacity in domestic law to nonetheless participate in the administrative phase of the development consent process?