CELEX: 62018CN0331
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-331/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský sud v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 22 May 2018 — TE v Pohotovost’ s.r.o.

201808030092050422018/C 294/203312018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180522151621Case C-331/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský sud v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 22 May 2018 — TE v Pohotovost’ s.r.o.
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN1510120180522EN0020151162Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský sud v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 22 May 2018 — TE v Pohotovost’ s.r.o.
   (Case C-331/18)2018/C 294/20Language of the case: Slovak
      Referring court
   
   Krajský sud v Prešove
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: TE
   
      Defendant: Pohotovost’ s.r.o.
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            
               
                        A.
                     
                     
                        The Slovak legislature, in response to the judgment in Case C-42/15 (
                              1
                           ) has deleted with effect as of 1 May 2018 the words ‘capital, interest and other charges’ from Paragraph 9, on credit repayments and contractual terms, of Zákon č. 129/2010 Z.z. o spotrebiteľských úveroch a o iných úveroch a pôžičkách pre spotrebiteľov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Law No 129/2010 on consumer credit and other credits and loans for consumers and amending and supplementing certain laws), thereby ending the legal right of consumers to any explanation in a consumer credit agreement (not just by means of an amortisation table) of the breakdown of payment of the credit in terms of the capital, interest and other charges, as well as the penalties for infringement of that law.
                     
                  
                        B.
                     
                     
                        Although, from 1 May 2018, the amendment of the law has enabled a better execution of the judgment of the Court of Justice, the fact remains that in disputes concerning consumer contracts concluded prior to 1 May 2018, the [Slovak] courts have also reacted in practice by, inter alia, seeking, by means of an interpretation ‘in conformity with EU law’ to achieve in essence the same result as that pursued by the legislature.
                     
                  
                        C.
                     
                     
                        In this connection, the question referred to the Court of Justice concerns the interpretation of EU law by application of the doctrine of the indirect effect of directives. Taking into account the huge amount of decisions in which the courts in the past have conceded that consumers were granted, under Law No 129/2010, the right to a breakdown of repayments in terms of the capital, interest and other charges, the following question is referred:
                        In applying the doctrine of the indirect effect of a directive with regard to horizontal relationships between individuals with the aim of rendering the directive fully effective using all interpretative methods and the national legal order in its entirety, does the principle of legal certainty enable the court to adopt, in a dispute concerning a consumer credit contract concluded prior to 1 May 2018, a decision which is equivalent as to its effects to the amendments, effective as of 1 May 2018, made to the Law by the legislature for the purposes of executing the judgment in Case C-42/15?
                     
                  
      The other questions are referred by the national court only if the answer to Question 1 C is that in applying the doctrine of the indirect effect of a directive with regard to horizontal relationships between individuals with the aim of rendering the directive fully effective, the principle of legal certainty enables a court to adopt a decision which is equivalent as to its effects to the amendments, effective as of 1 May 2018, made to the Law by the legislature for the purposes of executing the judgment in Case C-42/15. In such circumstances:
   
            2.
         
         
            Must the judgment of 9 November 2016 delivered by the Court in Case C-42/15 Home Credit Slovakia, and Directive 2008/48/EC (
                  2
               ) of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (
                  3
               ) be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice has held that Directive 2008/48 precludes national legislation concerning the breakdown of credit repayments not only in the form of an amortisation table, but also in any other legal expression of the amount, the number and the frequency of the repayments of the capital of consumer credit.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Must the abovementioned judgment of the Court be interpreted as meaning that it governs the issue of whether legislation of a Member State under which consumers have a right to terms in a consumer credit contract on the amount, the number and the deadlines for the payment of interest and charges, as opposed the capital, also goes beyond Directive 2008/48? If the judgment also concerns interest and charges, then does a legislative expression of the method of payment of interest and charges in a form other than an amortisation table also exceed Directive 2008/48/EC, in particular Article 10(2)(j) thereof.
         
      (
         1
      )	Judgment of 9 November 2016, Home Credit Slovakia (EU:C:2016:842).
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
   (
         3
      )	Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).