CELEX: 62018CN0232
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-232/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 29 March 2018 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. v María Angeles Díaz Soria, Miguel Ángel Góngora Gómez, José Antonio Sánchez González and Dolores María del Águila Andújar

201806220051970502018/C 240/262322018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180329232311Case C-232/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 29 March 2018 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. v María Angeles Díaz Soria, Miguel Ángel Góngora Gómez, José Antonio Sánchez González and Dolores María del Águila Andújar
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN2310120180329EN0026231231Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Almería (Spain) lodged on 29 March 2018 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. v María Angeles Díaz Soria, Miguel Ángel Góngora Gómez, José Antonio Sánchez González and Dolores María del Águila Andújar
   (Case C-232/18)2018/C 240/26Language of the case: Spanish
      Referring court
   
   Audiencia Provincial de Almería
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Banco Popular Español S.A.
   
      Defendants: María Angeles Díaz Soria, Miguel Ángel Góngora Gómez, José Antonio Sánchez González and Dolores María del Águila Andújar
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Is a provision such as that laid down in Article 465.5 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 (Law on Civil Procedure) which limits the power of the Tribunal de Apelación (Court of Appeal) to assess of its own motion all the effects of a declaration of invalidity, which is upheld on appeal, compatible with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, (
                  1
               ) when those effects have been determined restrictively at first instance and the consumer has not appealed against the judgment at first instance declaring the term null and void?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Is the foregoing compatible with the principles laid down in Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13, if it means that the effects of a finding that a clause such as that at issue is unfair will be limited for persons making a claim under the ruling of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) in its judgment of 9 May 2013, declared invalid by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 December 2016? (
                  2
               )
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Does res judicata under national law (or following from the analysis that the appeal court might make when only the party claiming that the clause is valid has brought an appeal) affect only any declaration of nullity (of the clause[,] or also the full effects of that nullity when they have been limited in the judicial decision and no party has contested this?
         
      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
   (
         2
      )	Judgment of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo and Others (C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15, EU:C:2016:980).