CELEX: C1998/041/32
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 22 de Valencia, by order of that court of 11 November 1997 in the case of Travel Vac, SL v. Manuel José Antelm Sanchís (Case C-423/97)

C 41/16               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.2.98
Ð Is the progression coefficient existing between the tax                 matters relating exclusively to the fulfilment of
     band covering an imported vehicle of more than 18 hp                 obligations (clause 3) which account for the greater
     and the tax band covering a similar vehicle of 15 to                 part of the consideration payable (inasmuch as the
     16 hp discriminatory or not?                                         value of the immovable property itself amounts to Pta
                                                                          285 000 out of the sum of Pta 1 090 000 representing
                                                                          the total value of the contract)?
Ð Do the circulars of 28 December 1956, 23 December
     1977, 24 June 1987, 12 January 1988 and
     20 September 1991, as retroactively validated by                3. Is the complex of holiday time-share flats offered to
     Article 35 of the Finance (Amendment) Law of 22 June                 consumers in the town of Denia covered by the first
     1993, have the effect of making the tax discriminatory               indent of Article 1(1) of Directive 85/577/EEC, having
     in regard to owners of vehicles for which type-                      regard to the fact that the premises of Travel Vac, SL
     approval has not been granted in France, that is to say,             are located at 5Ð6o Calle Profesor BeltraÂn BaÂguena,
     vehicles approved on an individual basis?                            Valencia?
                                                                     4. Is the right of renunciation granted to the consumer by
Ð If the answer is yes, can the owner of a standard                       Article 5(1) of the Directive based on a presumption
     vehicle with a power rating in excess of 100 kW rely                 that the exercise of his free will has been affected or
     on that answer in order to plead, by application of the              manipulated as a result of the circumstances referred
     general principles of Community law such as equality                 to in Article 1 of the Directive; if so, to what extent is
     in regard to public charges and the provisions of the                that right of renunciation, as guaranteed by the
     European Convention on Human Rights and the                          Directive, founded on a connection with deceit
     Protocols thereto, that the tax is not payable on the                generally on the part of the vendor, in the form of the
     ground that it is discriminatory and inequitable?                    use by one of the contracting parties of insidious
                                                                          words or machinations which induce the other to
                                                                          enter into a contract which would not otherwise have
                                                                          been concluded' (Article 1269 of the Spanish Civil
                                                                          Code) and, generally, with the freely given consent
                                                                          which necessarily forms part of any contract (Articles
                                                                          1254, 1258, 1261 et seq. of the Spanish Civil Code)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de
Primera Instancia No 22 de Valencia, by order of that
court of 11 November 1997 in the case of Travel Vac, SL              5. Must the notice provided for by Article 5(1) of the
                v. Manuel JoseÂ Antelm Sanchís                            Directive be given expressly, or can it, where
                                                                          appropriate, take the form of specific unequivocal acts
                        (Case C-423/97)                                   such as, in the present case, the non-appearance of the
                                                                          consumer at the time stipulated and agreed for
                          (98/C 41/32)                                    signature of ratification on the Bank's premises, on
                                                                          17 September 1996, three days after signature of the
                                                                          contract appearing on page 76 in the case file, the
                                                                          consumer's position being evidenced and made clear
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          by his appearance in the vendor's premises in Valencia
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de
                                                                          on the same day, 17 September 1996, when he stated
Primera Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 22,
                                                                          orally that it was all off and that the documents
Valencia, of 11 November 1997, which was received at
                                                                          which he had signed were to be returned to him'?
the Court Registry on 15 December 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Travel Vac, SL v. Manuel
JoseÂ Antelm Sanchís on the following questions:
                                                                     6. Are the provisions of Article 7 of the Directive
                                                                          concerning the reimbursement of payments, the return
                                                                          of goods and other effects arising in favour of the
1. Are time-share contracts generally, and the contract at                vendor upon the exercise by the consumer of his right
     issue in the present case (page 76 in the case file) in              of renunciation pursuant to Article 5 compatible with
     particular, to be regarded as falling within the scope of            an agreement to pay compensation for damage caused
     Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 85/577/EEC (1), which                   to the vendor' in the form of a lump sum quantified at
     contains provisions excluding the application of that                25 % of the total price of the transaction, as laid down
     Directive?                                                           in clause 4 of the contract (on the reverse of page 76
                                                                          in the case file)?
2. Even if, by virtue of that Article, the contract at issue         (1) Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
     in the present case, being a time-share contract, is                protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
     excluded from the application of that Directive, could              from business premises (OJ L 372, 13.12.1985, p. 31).
     such exclusion be negated by the fact that the contract
     is not concerned solely with immovable property but
     also involves the provision of services and other