CELEX: 62015CA0127
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-127/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v INKO, Inkasso GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer protection — Consumer credit — Article 2(2)(j) — Rescheduling agreements — Deferred payment, free of charge — Article 3(f) — Credit intermediaries — Debt recovery companies acting on behalf of lenders)

6.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 38/2
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v INKO, Inkasso GmbH
   (Case C-127/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Article 2(2)(j) - Rescheduling agreements - Deferred payment, free of charge - Article 3(f) - Credit intermediaries - Debt recovery companies acting on behalf of lenders))
   (2017/C 038/02)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation
   
      Defendant: INKO, Inkasso GmbH
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 2(2)(j) and 3(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a credit rescheduling agreement, which is concluded, following the consumer’s default, between that consumer and the lender through a debt collection agency, is not agreed to ‘free of charge’, within the meaning of that article, where, by that agreement, the consumer undertakes to repay the total amount of that credit and to pay interest and costs that were not provided for by the initial contract under which that credit was granted;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 3(f) and Article 7 of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as meaning that a debt collection agency which concludes, on behalf of a lender, a rescheduling agreement for an unpaid credit, but which acts as a credit intermediary only in an ancillary capacity, which is for the referring court to determine, must be regarded as being a ‘credit intermediary’ within the meaning of Article 3(f) and is not subject to the obligation to provide the consumer with pre-contractual information under Articles 5 and 6 of that directive.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.