CELEX: 62017CB0344
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-344/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino — Italy) — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — National legislation making it possible to sue the principal debtor and the guarantor before the same court — Derogation from the rules establishing jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

12.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/13
            
         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino — Italy) — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando
   (Case C-344/17) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - National legislation making it possible to sue the principal debtor and the guarantor before the same court - Derogation from the rules establishing jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice))
   (2018/C 052/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunale di Torino
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: IJDF Italy Srl
   
      Defendants: Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that they are not applicable in the context of a dispute relating to the establishment of jurisdiction concerning related cases, since that dispute does not come within the scope of Directive 93/13.
   
      (1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.