CELEX: 62018CN0407
Language: en
Date: 2018-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-407/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 21 June 2018 — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.

201808030202050072018/C 294/514072018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180621373822Case C-407/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 21 June 2018 — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN3720120180621EN0051372382Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 21 June 2018 — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
   (Case C-407/18)2018/C 294/51Language of the case: Slovenian
      Referring court
   
   Višje sodišče v Mariboru
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar
   
      Defendant: Addiko Bank d.d.
   
      Question referred
   
   In the light of the principle of effectiveness of EU law, should Council Directive 93/13/EEC (
         1
      ) be interpreted as meaning that, in enforcement proceedings, the court responsible for enforcement is required of its own motion to refuse enforcement on the ground that a directly enforceable notarial instrument (enforceable measure) contains an unfair clause, in a case such as that under consideration, in which the procedural rules of the Member State do not allow the court responsible for enforcement to suspend or stay enforcement (upon application by the debtor or of its own motion) until a final substantive decision on whether the term is unfair is given at the end of proceedings for declaratory relief brought by the debtor as consumer?
   (
         1
      )	Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).