CELEX: 62017CN0630
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-630/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Rijeci– Stalna služba u Rabu lodged on 9 November 2017 — Anica Milivojević v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

22.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 22/30
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Rijeci– Stalna služba u Rabu lodged on 9 November 2017 — Anica Milivojević v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen
   (Case C-630/17)
   (2018/C 022/42)
   Language of the case: Croatian
   
      Referring court
   
   Općinski sud u Rijeci– Stalna služba u Rabu
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Anica Milivojević
   
      Defendant: Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               (1)
            
            
               Must Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the provisions of the Zakon o ništetnosti ugovora o kreditu s međunarodnim obilježjima sklopljenih u Republici HrvatskOJ S neovlaštenim vjerovnikom (Law on the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia with an unauthorised creditor; Narodne novine [Official Gazette] No 72/2017), in particular the provisions of Article 10 of that Law, which provides for the nullity of loan contracts and other legal acts that are consequential upon the loan contract concluded between a debtor (within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2, first indent, of the said Law) and an unauthorised creditor (within the meaning of Article 2, second indent, of the same Law) or are based on that contract, even if they were concluded before the entry into force of that Law, that nullity taking effect from the moment the contract was entered into, with the result that each of the contracting parties is obliged to return to the other party everything received by it on the basis of the void contract and, when that is impossible or when the nature of the action taken is incompatible with restoration, adequate pecuniary compensation must be paid, based on the prices in force when the judicial decision is delivered?
            
         
               (2)
            
            
               Must Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), in particular Articles 4(1) and 25, be interpreted as precluding provisions of Article 8(1) and (2) of the Zakon o ništetnosti ugovora o kreditu s međunarodnim obilježjima sklopljenih u Republici HrvatskOJ S neovlaštenim vjerovnikom, in which it is laid down that, in disputes relating to loan contracts with international features within the meaning of that Law, the debtor may sue an unauthorised creditor before the courts of the State in which the latter has its registered office or, irrespective of where the unauthorised creditor has its registered office, before the courts of the place where the debtor resides or has his registered office, whereas an unauthorised creditor, within the meaning of that Law, may commence proceedings against the debtor only in the courts of the State in which the latter resides or has his registered office?
            
         
               (3)
            
            
               Is it a consumer contract within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and of the legal acquis of the Union if the recipient of the loan is a natural person who has concluded a loan contract in order to invest in holiday apartments with the aim of carrying on the business of offering tourists private board and lodging?
            
         
               (4)
            
            
               Must Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction is enjoyed by the courts of the Republic of Croatia to hear and determine proceedings seeking a declaration of nullity of a loan contract and of the corresponding memoranda of guarantee, together with cancellation of the registration of a mortgage in the Land Registry, when, in order to guarantee performance of the obligations under the loan contract, that mortgage was secured upon immovable property of the debtor situated within the Republic of Croatia?