CELEX: 62015CN0381
Language: en
Date: 2015-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-381/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zamora (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez v Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)

14.9.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 302/26
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zamora (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez v Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)
   (Case C-381/15)
   (2015/C 302/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Referring court
   
   Audiencia Provincial de Zamora
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Javier Ángel Rodríguez Sánchez
   
      Defendant: Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.U. (Banco CEISS)
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1)
            
            
               Is a situation where a declaration that a floor clause in a mortgage loan contract is unfair and therefore void takes effect, not from the date of the conclusion of the contract, but from a later date contrary to Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Does the application of the unfair term for the period of time laid down by the Spanish Tribunal Supremo give rise to unjust enrichment for the professional contractor, not allowed by the Community legislation in so far as it does not restore a balance between the parties and benefits the party to the contract who imposed the financial term held to be unfair?
            
         
               3)
            
            
               Is the criterion of the risk of severe disruptions to the national economy, to be met for limiting the application and effects of an unfair term, applicable to an individual action brought by a consumer or, on the contrary, in that individual action, does the criterion of risk of serious disruption refer to that caused to the financial position of the consumer as a result of the limitation of the effects of the term declared void to the period specified?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.