CELEX: 62014CN0421
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-421/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2014  — Banco Primus, S.A. v Jesús Gutiérrez García

24.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 421/19
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2014 — Banco Primus, S.A. v Jesús Gutiérrez García
   (Case C-421/14)
   2014/C 421/28
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Referring court
   
   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Banco Primus, S.A.
   
      Defendant: Jesús Gutiérrez García
   
      Questions referred
   
   
      First question:
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must the Fourth Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013 be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of the consumer?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a consumer permitted to raise a complaint regarding the presence of unfair terms outside the period specified under national legislation for raising such a complaint, and is the national court required to examine such terms?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a national court required to assess, of its own motion, whether a term is unfair and to determine the appropriate consequences, even where an earlier decision of that court reached the opposite conclusion or declined to make such an assessment and that decision was final under national procedural law?
            
         
      Second question:
   
   
               4.
            
            
               In what way may the quality/price ratio affect the review of the unfairness of non-essential terms of a contract? When conducting an indirect review of such factors, is it relevant to have regard to the limits imposed on prices under national legislation? Is it possible that terms that are valid when viewed in abstract cease to be so where it is found that the price of the transaction is very high by comparison with the market standard?
            
         
      Third question:
   
   
               5.
            
            
               For the purposes of Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, can circumstances arising after the conclusion of the contract be taken into account if an examination of the national legislation suggests that this is required?
            
         
      Fourth question:
   
   
               6.
            
            
               Must Article 693(2) of the LEC [Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure)], as amended by Law 1/2013, be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of consumer interests?
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair term concerning accelerated repayment, declare that that term does not form part of the contract and determine the consequences inherent in such a finding, even where the seller or supplier has waited the minimum time provided for in the national provision?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.