CELEX: 62015CN0554
Language: en
Date: 2015-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-554/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 27 October 2015 — Lucas Jerónimo García Almodovar and Catalina Molina Moreno v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.

25.1.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 27/10
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 27 October 2015 — Lucas Jerónimo García Almodovar and Catalina Molina Moreno v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.
   (Case C-554/15)
   (2016/C 027/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Referring court
   
   Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellants: Lucas Jerónimo García Almodovar and Catalina Molina Moreno
   
      Respondent: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U.
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the limiting of the retroactive effects of the nullity, on grounds of unfairness, of a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer and with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is the maintaining of the effects produced by a ‘floor clause’ declared void because unfair, inserted in a consumer contract, compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13]?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is the limitation of the retroactive effects of the nullity on grounds of unfairness of a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract because of a finding that there is a risk of serious difficulties with implications for the economic public order and because of good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13]?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, when the consumer against whom enforcement is sought lodges an objection to mortgage enforcement proceedings on the grounds of the unfairness of a contractual term inserted in the consumer contract which forms the basis of the enforcement proceedings or which determined the amount payable, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13] for it to be assumed that there is a risk of serious difficulties for the economic public order, or must that risk be assessed and evaluated in the light of the specific economic data from which it is inferred that granting retroactive effects to a ruling that an unfair term is null and void has macro-economic consequences?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               In turn, when the consumer against whom enforcement is sought lodges an objection to mortgage enforcement proceedings on the grounds of the unfairness of a contractual term inserted in the consumer contract which forms the basis of the enforcement proceedings or which determined the amount payable, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13] for the risk of serious difficulties for the economic public order to be assessed in the light of the economic effects that might be engendered by the potential bringing of an individual action or lodging of an objection to enforcement by a large number of consumers on the grounds that the clause is unfair, or, on the contrary, must that risk to be assessed in the light of the financial effect on the economy of the specific objection to enforcement brought by the consumer against whom enforcement is sought?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, is abstract evaluation of the conduct of any seller or supplier for the purposes of assessing good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive [93/13]?
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Or, on the contrary, on construing Article 6 of Directive [93/13], must that good faith be examined and evaluated in every specific case, in the light of the specific conduct of the seller or supplier when concluding the contract and inserting the unfair term in the contract?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.