CELEX: 62014CB0122
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-122/14: Order of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain) — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment v Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Order for payment procedure — Enforcement proceedings)

5.9.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/2
            
         Order of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain) — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment v Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa
   (Case C-122/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Order for payment procedure - Enforcement proceedings))
   (2016/C 326/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Referring court
   
   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena, Spain
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, branch in Zurich, formerly Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investment
   
      Defendant: Angel Luis Egea Torregrosa
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which do not allow the court dealing with the enforcement of a payment order to determine of its own motion, even though it has all the elements of law and fact necessary for that purpose, the unfairness of a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer which gave rise to that order, where, in the absence of opposition to the order by the consumer, the court
   
      (1)  OJ C 159 of 26.5.2014.