CELEX: 62018CN0266
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-266/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Aqua med sp. z o.o., established in Opalenica v Irena Skóra

201806290271986372018/C 249/142662018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180417101011Case C-266/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Aqua med sp. z o.o., established in Opalenica v Irena Skóra
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN1010120180417EN0014101101Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Aqua med sp. z o.o., established in Opalenica v Irena Skóra
   (Case C-266/18)2018/C 249/14Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court
   
   Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Aqua med sp. z o.o., established in Opalenica
   
      Defendant: Irena Skóra
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Must a review, by a national court of its own motion, of the provisions of a contract concluded with a consumer determining which court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and which is based on Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (
                  1
               ) and on the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment in Case C-243/08, Pannon GSM Zrt v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi), also cover those provisions of the contract which, although governing the matter of jurisdiction for settling disputes between the parties, confine themselves to referring to rules of national law?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the review by that court lead to rules of jurisdiction being applied in such a way as to guarantee consumers protection under the Directive, that is to say, that the case can be dealt with by the court which is closest to the consumer’s place of domicile or habitual residence?
         
      (
         1
      )	OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.