CELEX: 62021CN0087
Language: en
Date: 2021-02-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-87/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2021 — NSV and NM v BT

31.5.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 206/13
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 11 February 2021 — NSV and NM v BT
      (Case C-87/21)
      (2021/C 206/16)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Curtea de Apel Cluj
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellants: NSV and NM
      
         Respondent: BT
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Are Article 1(2), Article 5 [and] Article 4(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) to be interpreted as not excluding from review a term relating to foreign exchange risk which brings within a contract for consideration, based on relationships of strength, a principle expressed by a supplementary rule that is ordinarily applicable to a contract which is free of charge and is intended to place the contracting parties on an equal footing, but has not been assessed by the legislature with a view to striking a reasonable balance between the interests of the seller or supplier and those of the consumer, where the seller or supplier has included that principle in the contract without providing the consumer, at the pre-contractual stage, with information, advice and warnings regarding the particular features of the banking product concerned in terms of the characteristics of the currency of the loan, so that the consumer might understand the economic consequences of the commitment undertaken by him or her?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Is Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that exclusion is not justified where there is evidence which suggests that the seller or supplier inserted the term in bad faith, knowing that the application of the principle expressed by the supplementary rule was liable to cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations, to the detriment of the consumer?
               
            
         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).