CELEX: 62019CN0269
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-269/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.

15.7.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 238/7
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.
      (Case C-269/19)
      (2019/C 238/09)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Curtea de Apel Cluj
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: Banca B. SA
      
         Respondent: A. A. A.
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, after a term establishing the mechanism for determining the variable rate of interest by the formula ‘fixed margin and the benchmark interest applied by a bank on the basis of non-transparent criteria’ has been found to be unfair in connection with a credit agreement applying a fixed interest rate limited to the first year and a variable rate for the subsequent years, in accordance with the above formula, the national court may vary the agreement by imposing a method for calculating the variable rate of interest on the basis of transparent benchmarks (LIBOR/EURIBOR) and the bank’s fixed margin, in the light of the facts contained in the credit agreement, for the purposes of ensuring better consumer protection?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, the national court may apply, by judicial process, a fixed rate of interest by reference to the fixed margin agreed for the second year of the agreement or to the fixed rate of interest for the first year?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding the national court, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, from instructing the parties to conduct negotiations with a view to fixing a new interest rate, without setting any benchmarks?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  If the answer to that question is in the negative, what possible remedies are there to ensure that consumers are protected in line with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC?
               
            
         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).