CELEX: 62018CN0829
Language: en
Date: 2018-12-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-829/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 27 December 2018 — Crédit Logement SA v OE

4.3.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 82/18
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 27 December 2018 — Crédit Logement SA v OE
      (Case C-829/18)
      (2019/C 82/20)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Tribunal de grande instance de Paris
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Crédit Logement SA
      
         Defendant: OE
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Must Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) and the principle of effectiveness of [EU] law be interpreted as precluding the application of a rule of national law preventing the courts from assessing whether a term in a contract entered into with a trader is unfair, where the trade guarantor guaranteeing performance of the contract informed the debtor/consumer that it was going to proceed to payment and the debtor/consumer did not inform the trade guarantor of the exceptions to be raised?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Is the reference in the body of the contract to the fact that the foreign exchange risk lies with the borrower, supplemented by amortisation tables, capable of rendering the term ‘plain and intelligible’ for the purpose of the directive, where no simulations have been provided illustrating different scenarios, including negative ones, relating to exchange rate movements?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Does the burden of proving that the consumer was provided with the necessary information for ensuring that the term at issue was plain and intelligible and of proving that that term was plain and intelligible lie with the trader or the consumer?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  If the court finds that Articles 1.2.1 to 1.2.9 and 2.8 of the contract are unfair because they were not drafted in sufficiently plain and intelligible language, should all the financial terms, including the term concerning interest, be declared not written? Or should only those terms concerning the variation of the exchange rate and the term concerning currency be declared not written, retaining a fixed-interest rate, in euros? Or should another option be considered?
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  In considering the previous question, is it necessary for the court to satisfy itself that the penalty thus imposed is effective, proportionate and dissuasive?
               
            
         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).