CELEX: 62011CN0488
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-488/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 23 September 2011 — D.F. Asbeek Brusse, K. De Man Garabito v Jahani BV

14.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 13/3
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 23 September 2011 — D.F. Asbeek Brusse, K. De Man Garabito v Jahani BV
   (Case C-488/11)
   2012/C 13/06
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Gerechtshof Amsterdam
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Dirk Frederik Asbeek Brusse, Katarina De Man Garabito
   
      Defendant: Jahani BV
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Should a person who lets residential premises on a commercial basis and who lets a residential property to an individual be deemed to be a seller or supplier within the meaning of the Directive? (1) Does a tenancy agreement between a person who lets residential premises on a commercial basis and a person who rents such premises on a non-commercial basis fall within the scope of the Directive?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the fact that Article 6 of the Directive must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy, mean that, in a dispute between individuals, the national transposition measures with regard to unfair contractual terms are a matter of public policy, so that the national court is competent and obliged, both in first-instance proceedings and in appeal proceedings, of its own motion (and thus also outside the ambit of the grounds of complaint), to assess a contractual term against the national transposition measures and to find that term to be void if it comes to the conclusion that the term is unfair?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is it compatible with the practical effect of Community law that the national court does not refrain from applying a penalty clause which must be deemed to be an unfair contractual term within the meaning of the Directive, but, by the application of national legislation, merely mitigates the penalty, in a case where an individual has invoked the mitigation powers of the court, but not the voidability of the term concerned?
            
         
      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).