C 63/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
20.2.2023
3.
Is Article [23] of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for in national law, in the form of the nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate where the annual percentage rate of charge is not accurately indicated in the consumer credit agreement? 4.
Is Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13/EEC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a fee for a package of ancillary services provided for in a supplementary agreement to a consumer credit agreement, which has been concluded separately and in addition to the main agreement, must be regarded as part of the main subject matter of the agreement and cannot therefore be the subject matter of the assessment of unfairness? 5.
Is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC read in conjunction with point 1(o) of the annex to that directive to be interpreted as meaning that a term in an agreement on ancillary services relating to consumer credit is unfair if it grants the consumer the abstract possibility of deferring and rescheduling payments, in respect of which that consumer owes fees even if he or she does not make use of it? 6.
Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and the principle of effectiveness to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a legal provision whereby the consumer may be made to bear part of the costs of the proceedings in the following cases: (1) where a claim for a declaration that sums are not owed by reason of the established unfairness of a term is upheld in part [...]; (2) where it is practically impossible or excessively difficult for the consumer, in the exercise of his or her rights, to specify the amount of the claim; (3) in all cases where an unfair term is present, including in cases where the presence of the unfair term does not directly affect, either in whole or in part, the amount of the creditor’s claim, or where the term has no direct connection with the subject matter of the proceedings?
(1) (2)
Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
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 Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 25 November 2022 — Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Government of Ireland, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland and the Attorney General (Case C-727/22) (2023/C 63/26) Language of the case: English Referring court Supreme Court
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment CLG Defendants: Government of Ireland, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland and the Attorney General
Questions referred 1.
Must Article 2(a) of the SEA Directive (1), read in conjunction with Article 3(2)(a), be interpreted to mean that a measure adopted by the executive arm of a Member State, other than by reason of a legislative or administrative compulsion, and not on the authority of any regulatory, administrative or legislative measure, is capable of being a plan or programme to which the Directive applies, if the plan or programme so adopted sets a framework for downstream grant or refusal of development consent and thus satisfies the test from Article 3(2) of the Directive 2.
Must Article 3(1) read in conjunction with Article 3(8) and (9) of the SEA Directive be interpreted to mean that a plan or programme which makes specific, albeit described as ‘indicative’, provision for the allocation of funds to build certain infrastructure projects with a view to supporting the spatial development strategy of another plan, itself forming the basis of downstream spatial development strategy, could itself be a plan or programme within the meaning of the SEA Directive?