CELEX: 62015CN0627
Language: en
Date: 2015-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-627/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Dumitru Gavrilescu, Liana Gavrilescu v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — sucursala Câmpulung

10.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 165/4
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Dumitru Gavrilescu, Liana Gavrilescu v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — sucursala Câmpulung
   (Case C-627/15)
   (2016/C 165/05)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Judecătoria Câmpulung
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Dumitru Gavrilescu, Liana Gavrilescu
   
      Defendants: SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — sucursala Câmpulung
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other’ cover a term in a credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, which was not the subject of individual negotiation, and which provides, in respect of the loan repayment instalments, that the debtor alone must bear the ‘currency risk’, that is to say the potential negative effect of an increase in the monthly repayment instalments caused by fluctuations in the exchange rates of the currency, which the consumer must bear as a consequence of concluding the loan agreement and the requirement to repay the amounts disbursed under the agreement in a currency other than the national currency of Romania?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               For the purposes of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, does the consumer’s obligation to bear the cost, when repaying the loan, of the difference arising from an increase in the exchange rate of the currency in which the loan was granted (CHF) represent remuneration whose adequacy as against the service supplied may not be examined for the purpose of assessing whether it is unfair?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the reply to the above question is that such a term escapes the assessment of unfairness, may that term be regarded as satisfying the requirements of good faith, balance and transparency laid down by the directive in question, by enabling the consumer to be able to foresee, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the consequences for him of such a term?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Does a contractual term such as that referred to in [point] 4.2 of the General conditions of the contract, to the effect that the bank is given the right to convert a loan granted in CHF into national currency in the event of a rise in the exchange rate of more than 10 % in relation to the value at the time when the contract was concluded, in order to prevent the bank continuing to increase its exposure to the currency risk, without a similar right being given to the consumer, fall within the scope of protection of Directive 93/13 or does it escape the assessment of unfairness?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.