CELEX: 62017CN0400
Language: en
Date: 2017-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-400/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch

18.9.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 309/28
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch
   (Case C-400/17)
   (2017/C 309/37)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunalul Dolj
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița
   
      Defendants: SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract’ may also be said to exist where, during the performance of the contract, whether it is performed at regular intervals or continuously, performance by the consumer has become excessively burdensome in comparison with the time when the contract was concluded because of significant variations in the exchange rate, which none of the parties could have foreseen?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Must the plainness and intelligibility of a contractual term, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, be understood to mean that the term must provide only for the grounds for its conclusion in the contract and its method of operation, or must it also provide for all the possible consequences of the term as a result of which the price to be paid by the consumer may vary, such as for example, foreign exchange risk?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               When interpreting Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, may the expression ‘not be binding on the consumer’ be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations as a result of changes in the exchange rate, the national court may exempt the consumer from the obligation to bear the entire foreign exchange risk?
            
         
      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 25).