CELEX: 62019CN0831
Language: en
Date: 2019-11-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-831/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2019 — Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW

3.2.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 36/18
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2019 — Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW
      (Case C-831/19)
      (2020/C 36/22)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Referring court
      
      Tribunale di Milano
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA, Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Carugate e Inzago SC, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, Banca Popolare di Sondrio SCpA, Cerved Credit Management SpA
      
         Defendants: YX, ZW
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Under what conditions, if any, do the combined provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national rule, such as that under consideration, which prevents the court hearing enforcement proceedings from carrying out a review of the content of an enforceable judicial instrument that has acquired the force of res judicata, when the consumer, having become aware of his status (an awareness not previously possible under the law as applied at the relevant time), requests such a review?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Under what conditions, if any, do the combined provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a legal system, such as the national system under consideration, which, in the light of an implicit decision that a contractual term is fair, a decision having acquired the force of res judicata, prevents the court hearing enforcement proceedings, called upon to rule on the consumer’s objection to the enforcement, from finding the term to be unfair? Moreover, can such a court be so precluded where — under the law as it was applied at the time that decision acquired the force of res judicata — it was not possible to consider whether the term was unfair because the guarantor could not be classified as a consumer?
               
            
         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).