CELEX: 62014CA0110
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-110/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Horațiu Ovidiu Costea v SC Volksbank România SA (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 2(b) — Concept of ‘consumer’ — Credit agreement concluded by a natural person who practises as a lawyer — Repayment of a loan secured on a building owned by the borrower’s law firm — Borrower who has the necessary knowledge to assess the unfairness of a term before signing the agreement)

26.10.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 354/6
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — Horațiu Ovidiu Costea v SC Volksbank România SA
   (Case C-110/14) (1)
   
   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Concept of ‘consumer’ - Credit agreement concluded by a natural person who practises as a lawyer - Repayment of a loan secured on a building owned by the borrower’s law firm - Borrower who has the necessary knowledge to assess the unfairness of a term before signing the agreement))
   (2015/C 354/06)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Judecătoria Oradea
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Horațiu Ovidiu Costea
   
      Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who practises as a lawyer and concludes a credit agreement with a bank, in which the purpose of the credit is not specified, may be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision, where that agreement is not linked to that lawyer’s profession. The fact that the debt arising out of the same contract is secured by a mortgage taken out by that person in his capacity as representative of his law firm and involving goods intended for the exercise of that person’s profession, such as a building belonging to that firm, is not relevant in that regard.
   
      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.