CELEX: 62010CN0076
Language: en
Date: 2010-02-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-76/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regional Court in Prešov (Slovak Republic) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Iveta Korčkovská

22.5.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 134/16
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regional Court in Prešov (Slovak Republic) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Iveta Korčkovská
   (Case C-76/10)
   2010/C 134/25
   Language of the case: Slovak
   
      Referring court
   
   Regional Court in Prešov
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Pohotovosť s.r.o.
   
      Defendant: Iveta Korčkovská
   
      Questions referred
   
   1.   Question one
   
   
               (a)
            
            
               Is information about the total cost to the consumer in percentage points (the annual percentage rate — APR) of such importance that failure to mention it in the contract could render the cost of consumer credit non-transparent and insufficiently clear and comprehensible?
            
         
               (b)
            
            
               Is it possible, under the consumer protection framework provided by Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to regard the price as an unfair condition in a credit contract on the grounds of insufficient transparency and clarity if the contract fails to set out information on the total cost of consumer credit in percentage points and the price is expressed solely as a financial sum consisting of various fees specified both in the contract and in the General Terms and Conditions?
            
         2.   Question two
   
   
               (a)
            
            
               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing an application for enforcement of a final arbitral award issued without the participation of the consumer, is required of its own motion, where the necessary information on the legal and factual state of affairs is available to it for this purpose, to consider the fairness of a penalty contained in the credit agreement concluded by a creditor with a consumer if, according to national procedural rules, such an assessment may be conducted in similar proceedings under national law?
            
         
               (b)
            
            
               If the penalty for a violation of the consumer’s obligations is disproportionate, is it for this court to draw the necessary conclusions arising therefrom under national law to ensure that the consumer will not be bound by that penalty?
            
         
               (c)
            
            
               Can a penalty of 0,25 % per day on outstanding credit, i.e. 91,25 % p.a., be regarded as an unfair condition on the grounds that it is disproportionate?
            
         3.   Question three
   
   In the application of EU legislation (Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC), is the consumer protection framework of such a nature in relation to consumer credit agreements that, if a contract circumvents regulations designed to protect consumers in the field of consumer credit and if, under such a contract, an application is submitted for the enforcement of a ruling under an arbitral award, the court may discontinue enforcement proceedings or permit enforcement proceedings at the creditor’s expense only up to the outstanding amount of the credit granted, if, under national rules, such an assessment of an arbitral award is admissible and the court has the necessary information about the factual or legal state of affairs at its disposal?
   
      (1)  OJ L 112, p. 29