CELEX: 62016CN0096
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-96/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet

25.4.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 145/24
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet
   (Case C-96/16)
   (2016/C 145/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Referring court
   
   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 38 de Barcelona
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Banco Santander, S.A.
   
      Defendants: Mahamdou Demba and Mercedes Godoy Bonet
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does the business practice of assigning or purchasing debts without offering the consumer the opportunity to extinguish the debt by paying the price, interest, expenses and costs of the proceedings to the assignee comply with EU law, and specifically with Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 C of the Treaty of Lisbon, and Articles 4(2), 12 and 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? (1)
               
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is that business practice of purchasing a consumer’s debt for a negligible price without his consent or knowledge, without including that practice as a general condition or unfair term imposed in the agreement, and without giving the consumer the opportunity to participate in that operation by purchasing and thus extinguishing the debt, compatible with the principles laid down in Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and, by extension, with the principle of effectiveness and with Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of that directive?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               For the purpose of safeguarding the protection of consumers and users and the Community case-law which develops it, is it in accordance with European law, Directive 93/13, and in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, to establish as an unequivocal criterion that, in unsecured loan agreements concluded with consumers, a non-negotiated term which sets a default interest rate that exceeds by more than two percentage points the basic contract rate of interest (‘ordinary interest’) is unfair?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               For the purpose of safeguarding the protection of consumers and users and the Community case-law which develops it, is it in accordance with European law, Directive 93/13, and in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, to establish, as a consequence, that ordinary interest will continue to accrue until the debt has been paid in full?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.