mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/29 (2019)
Language: Latvian

Šajos apstākļos Tribunal administratif nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:
“Vai 2014. gada 24. jūlija likuma 3. panta 5. [punkta] b) [apakšpunktā] Luksemburgas Lielhercogistē nedzīvojošiem studentiem izvirzītais nosacījums, neņemot vērā citus piesaistes kritērijus, proti, ka viņiem ir jābūt tādu darba ņēmēju bērniem, kuri pieteikuma par finansiālu atbalstu iesniegšanas brīdī Luksemburgā ir bijuši darba ņēmēji vai pašnodarbinātie vismaz piecus gadus bez pārtraukuma septiņu gadu atsauces laikposmā, ir nepieciešams, lai sasniegtu Luksemburgas likumdevēja izvirzīto mērķi, proti, censties veicināt personu ar augstākās izglītības diplomu īpatsvara pieaugumu?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Luksemburgas likumdevēja"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Luksemburgas likumdevēja"->"prejudiciālu jautājumu";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Tiesai";
  "Luksemburgas likumdevēja"->"apturēt tiesvedību"[dir=none];
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Vai 2014. gada 24. jūlija likuma 3. panta 5. [punkta] b) [apakšpunktā] Luksemburgas Lielhercogistē nedzīvojošiem studentiem izvirzītais nosacījums, neņemot vērā citus piesaistes kritērijus, proti, ka viņiem ir jābūt tādu darba ņēmēju bērniem, kuri pieteikuma par finansiālu atbalstu iesniegšanas brīdī Luksemburgā ir bijuši darba ņēmēji vai pašnodarbinātie vismaz piecus gadus bez pārtraukuma septiņu gadu atsauces laikposmā, ir nepieciešams, lai sasniegtu Luksemburgas likumdevēja izvirzīto mērķi, proti, censties veicināt personu ar augstākās izglītības diplomu īpatsvara pieaugumu?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/30 (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Šiomis aplinkybėmis Tribunal administratif (Administracinis teismas) nusprendė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui šį prejudicinį klausimą:
„Ar 2014 m. liepos 24 d. įstatymo 3 straipsnio 5 [dalies] b [punkte] numatyta sąlyga, taikoma Liuksemburgo Didžiojoje Hercogystėje nuolat negyvenantiems studentams, neatsižvelgiant į jokius kitus sąsajos kriterijus, kad jie turi būti darbuotojų, prašymo suteikti finansinę pagalbą pateikimo metu dirbusių ar vykdžiusių veiklą Liuksemburge bent penkerius metus per referencinį septynerių metų laikotarpį, vaikai, yra būtina Liuksemburgo teisės aktų leidėjo nurodytam tikslui – padidinti aukštojo mokslo diplomą turinčių asmenų skaičių – pasiekti?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Liuksemburgo teisės aktų leidėjo"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Liuksemburgo teisės aktų leidėjo"->"prejudicinį klausimą";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "Liuksemburgo teisės aktų leidėjo"->"sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą"[dir=none];
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Ar 2014 m. liepos 24 d. įstatymo 3 straipsnio 5 [dalies] b [punkte] numatyta sąlyga, taikoma Liuksemburgo Didžiojoje Hercogystėje nuolat negyvenantiems studentams, neatsižvelgiant į jokius kitus sąsajos kriterijus, kad jie turi būti darbuotojų, prašymo suteikti finansinę pagalbą pateikimo metu dirbusių ar vykdžiusių veiklą Liuksemburge bent penkerius metus per referencinį septynerių metų laikotarpį, vaikai, yra būtina Liuksemburgo teisės aktų leidėjo nurodytam tikslui – padidinti aukštojo mokslo diplomą turinčių asmenų skaičių – pasiekti?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/32 (2019)
Language: Maltese

F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi t-Tribunal administratif (it-Tribunal Amministrattiv) iddeċieda li jissospendi l-proċeduri u li jagħmel id-domanda li ġejja lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja:
“Il-kundizzjoni imposta fuq l-istudenti li ma jirrisjedux fil-Gran Dukat tal-Lussemburgu mill-Artikolu 3(5)(b) tal-Liġi emendata tal-24 ta’ Lulju 2014 dwar l-għajnuna finanzjarja mill-Istat għall-edukazzjoni ogħla, bl-esklużjoni ta’ teħid inkunsiderazzjoni ta’ kwalunkwe kriterju ta’ rabta, jiġifieri li wieħed ikun wild ta’ ħaddiema li kienu impjegati jew li eżerċitaw l-attività tagħhom fil-Lussemburgu għal perijodu ta’ mill-inqas ħames snin matul perijodu ta’ riferiment ta’ seba’ snin fil-mument tat-talba għall-għajnuna finanzjarja, hija neċċessarja sabiex jintlaħaq l-għan mixtieq mil-leġiżlatur Lussemburgiż, jiġifieri li dan l-Istat ifittex li jinkoraġġixxi ż-żieda fil-proporzjon tal-persuni li għandhom diploma ta’ edukazzjoni ogħla?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "leġiżlatur Lussemburgiż"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Qorti tal-Ġustizzja"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "leġiżlatur Lussemburgiż"->"id-domanda li ġejja lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja";
  "id-domanda li ġejja lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja"->"Qorti tal-Ġustizzja";
  "leġiżlatur Lussemburgiż"->"jissospendi l-proċeduri"[dir=none];
  "id-domanda li ġejja lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja"->"Il-kundizzjoni imposta fuq l-istudenti li ma jirrisjedux fil-Gran Dukat tal-Lussemburgu mill-Artikolu 3(5)(b) tal-Liġi emendata tal-24 ta’ Lulju 2014 dwar l-għajnuna finanzjarja mill-Istat għall-edukazzjoni ogħla, bl-esklużjoni ta’ teħid inkunsiderazzjoni ta’ kwalunkwe kriterju ta’ rabta, jiġifieri li wieħed ikun wild ta’ ħaddiema li kienu impjegati jew li eżerċitaw l-attività tagħhom fil-Lussemburgu għal perijodu ta’ mill-inqas ħames snin matul perijodu ta’ riferiment ta’ seba’ snin fil-mument tat-talba għall-għajnuna finanzjarja, hija neċċessarja sabiex jintlaħaq l-għan mixtieq mil-leġiżlatur Lussemburgiż, jiġifieri li dan l-Istat ifittex li jinkoraġġixxi ż-żieda fil-proporzjon tal-persuni li għandhom diploma ta’ edukazzjoni ogħla?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/33 (2019)
Language: Dutch

In deze omstandigheden heeft de tribunal administratif de behandeling van de zaak geschorst en het Hof verzocht om een prejudiciële beslissing over de volgende vraag:
„Is de voorwaarde die bij artikel 3, lid 5, onder b), van de wet van 24 juli 2014 [...] – onder uitsluiting van de toepassing van enig ander aanknopingscriterium – is opgelegd aan niet in het Groothertogdom Luxemburg wonende studenten, namelijk dat zij kind zijn van personen die op het tijdstip van het verzoek om studiefinanciering in de loop van een referentieperiode van zeven jaar ten minste vijf jaar in Luxemburg in loondienst of als zelfstandige hebben gewerkt, noodzakelijk ter verwezenlijking van de door de Luxemburgse wetgever nagestreefde doelstelling ervoor te zorgen dat het bevolkingsaandeel met een hogeronderwijsdiploma toeneemt?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "de Luxemburgse wetgever"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "het Hof"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "de Luxemburgse wetgever"->"prejudiciële beslissing";
  "prejudiciële beslissing"->"het Hof";
  "de Luxemburgse wetgever"->"de behandeling van de zaak geschorst"[dir=none];
  "prejudiciële beslissing"->"Is de voorwaarde die bij artikel 3, lid 5, onder b), van de wet van 24 juli 2014 [...] – onder uitsluiting van de toepassing van enig ander aanknopingscriterium – is opgelegd aan niet in het Groothertogdom Luxemburg wonende studenten, namelijk dat zij kind zijn van personen die op het tijdstip van het verzoek om studiefinanciering in de loop van een referentieperiode van zeven jaar ten minste vijf jaar in Luxemburg in loondienst of als zelfstandige hebben gewerkt, noodzakelijk ter verwezenlijking van de door de Luxemburgse wetgever nagestreefde doelstelling ervoor te zorgen dat het bevolkingsaandeel met een hogeronderwijsdiploma toeneemt?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/34 (2019)
Language: Polish

W tych okolicznościach Tribunal administratif (sąd administracyjny) postanowił zawiesić postępowanie i zwrócić się do Trybunału z następującym pytaniem prejudycjalnym:
„Czy warunek nakładany na studentów niemających miejsca zamieszkania w Wielkim Księstwie Luksemburga w art. 3 [ust.] 5 lit. b) znowelizowanej ustawy z dnia 24 lipca 2014 r. o pomocy finansowej państwa na naukę w szkole wyższej, bez uwzględnienia jakiegokolwiek innego łącznika, mianowicie warunek polegający na byciu dziećmi pracowników, którzy byli zatrudnieni lub prowadzili działalność na własny rachunek w Luksemburgu przez okres co najmniej pięciu lat na przestrzeni siedmioletniego okresu odniesienia w chwili złożenia wniosku o pomoc finansową, jest konieczny do osiągnięcia celu zamierzonego przez ustawodawcę luksemburskiego, a mianowicie spowodowania zwiększenia proporcji osób posiadających dyplom ukończenia szkoły wyższej?”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "ustawodawca luksemburski"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Trybunału"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "ustawodawca luksemburski"->"pytaniem prejudycjalnym";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Trybunału";
  "ustawodawca luksemburski"->"zawiesić postępowanie"[dir=none];
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Czy warunek nakładany na studentów niemających miejsca zamieszkania w Wielkim Księstwie Luksemburga w art. 3 [ust.] 5 lit. b) znowelizowanej ustawy z dnia 24 lipca 2014 r. o pomocy finansowej państwa na naukę w szkole wyższej, bez uwzględnienia jakiegokolwiek innego łącznika, mianowicie warunek polegający na byciu dziećmi pracowników, którzy byli zatrudnieni lub prowadzili działalność na własny rachunek w Luksemburgu przez okres co najmniej pięciu lat na przestrzeni siedmioletniego okresu odniesienia w chwili złożenia wniosku o pomoc finansową, jest konieczny do osiągnięcia celu zamierzonego przez ustawodawcę luksemburskiego, a mianowicie spowodowania zwiększenia proporcji osób posiadających dyplom ukończenia szkoły wyższej?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/35 (2019)
Language: Portuguese

Nestas circunstâncias, o Tribunal administratif (Tribunal Administrativo) decidiu suspender a instância e submeter ao Tribunal de Justiça a seguinte questão prejudicial:
«O requisito imposto aos estudantes não residentes no Grão‑Ducado do Luxemburgo pelo artigo 3.o, [n.o] 5, alínea b), da [Lei de 24 de julho de 2014], que não toma em consideração nenhum outro critério de conexão, a saber, o facto de os estudantes serem filhos de trabalhadores que estiveram empregados ou exerceram a sua atividade no Luxemburgo durante um período de pelo menos cinco anos no decurso de um período de referência de sete anos à data da apresentação do pedido de auxílio financeiro, é necessário para atingir o objetivo apresentado pelo legislador luxemburguês, a saber, procurar encorajar o aumento da proporção de pessoas titulares de um diploma do ensino superior?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "legislador luxemburguês"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tribunal de Justiça"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "legislador luxemburguês"->"questão prejudicial";
  "questão prejudicial"->"Tribunal de Justiça";
  "legislador luxemburguês"->"suspender a instância"[dir=none];
  "questão prejudicial"->"O requisito imposto aos estudantes não residentes no Grão‑Ducado do Luxemburgo pelo artigo 3.o, [n.o] 5, alínea b), da [Lei de 24 de julho de 2014], que não toma em consideração nenhum outro critério de conexão, a saber, o facto de os estudantes serem filhos de trabalhadores que estiveram empregados ou exerceram a sua atividade no Luxemburgo durante um período de pelo menos cinco anos no decurso de um período de referência de sete anos à data da apresentação do pedido de auxílio financeiro, é necessário para atingir o objetivo apresentado pelo legislador luxemburguês, a saber, procurar encorajar o aumento da proporção de pessoas titulares de um diploma do ensino superior?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/36 (2019)
Language: Romanian

În aceste condiții, Tribunal administratif (Tribunalul Administrativ) a hotărât să suspende judecarea cauzei și să adreseze Curții următoarea întrebare preliminară:
„Condiția impusă studenților nerezidenți în Marele Ducat al Luxemburgului prin articolul 3 punctul 5 litera b) din Legea din 24 iulie 2014, cu excluderea luării în considerare a oricărui alt criteriu de legătură, și anume de a fi copii de lucrători care au fost angajați sau care și‑au desfășurat activitatea în Luxemburg pentru o perioadă de cel puțin cinci ani în cadrul unei perioade de referință de șapte ani la momentul formulării cererii de ajutor financiar, este necesară pentru a atinge obiectivul invocat de legiuitorul luxemburghez, care constă în a urmări încurajarea creșterii procentajului persoanelor care sunt titulare ale unei diplome de învățământ superior?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "legiuitorul luxemburghez"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Curții"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "legiuitorul luxemburghez"->"următoarea întrebare preliminară";
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară"->"Curții";
  "legiuitorul luxemburghez"->"suspende judecarea cauzei"[dir=none];
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară"->"Condiția impusă studenților nerezidenți în Marele Ducat al Luxemburgului prin articolul 3 punctul 5 litera b) din Legea din 24 iulie 2014, cu excluderea luării în considerare a oricărui alt criteriu de legătură, și anume de a fi copii de lucrători care au fost angajați sau care și‑au desfășurat activitatea în Luxemburg pentru o perioadă de cel puțin cinci ani în cadrul unei perioade de referință de șapte ani la momentul formulării cererii de ajutor financiar, este necesară pentru a atinge obiectivul invocat de legiuitorul luxemburghez, care constă în a urmări încurajarea creșterii procentajului persoanelor care sunt titulare ale unei diplome de învățământ superior?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/37 (2019)
Language: Slovak

Za týchto okolností Tribunal administratif (Správny súd, Luxembursko) rozhodol prerušiť konanie a položiť Súdnemu dvoru túto prejudiciálnu otázku:
„Je podmienka uložená vo vzťahu k študentom, ktorí nie sú rezidentmi Luxemburského veľkovojvodstva, článkom 3 [ods.] 5 [písm.] b) zákona z 24. júla 2014 bez zohľadnenia akéhokoľvek iného kritéria väzby, konkrétne podmienka, že musí ísť o deti pracovníkov, ktorí boli ku dňu podania žiadosti o finančnú podporu zamestnaní alebo vykonávali svoju činnosť v Luxembursku počas obdobia minimálne piatich rokov v rámci referenčného obdobia siedmich rokov, nevyhnutná na dosiahnutie cieľa sledovaného luxemburským zákonodarcom, ktorým je snaha podporiť zvýšenie podielu osôb, ktoré dosiahli vyššie vzdelanie?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "luxemburským zákonodarcom"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Súdny dvor"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "luxemburským zákonodarcom"->"prejudiciálnu otázku";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Súdny dvor";
  "luxemburským zákonodarcom"->"prerušiť konanie"[dir=none];
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Je podmienka uložená vo vzťahu k študentom, ktorí nie sú rezidentmi Luxemburského veľkovojvodstva, článkom 3 [ods.] 5 [písm.] b) zákona z 24. júla 2014 bez zohľadnenia akéhokoľvek iného kritéria väzby, konkrétne podmienka, že musí ísť o deti pracovníkov, ktorí boli ku dňu podania žiadosti o finančnú podporu zamestnaní alebo vykonávali svoju činnosť v Luxembursku počas obdobia minimálne piatich rokov v rámci referenčného obdobia siedmich rokov, nevyhnutná na dosiahnutie cieľa sledovaného luxemburským zákonodarcom, ktorým je snaha podporiť zvýšenie podielu osôb, ktoré dosiahli vyššie vzdelanie?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/39 (2019)
Language: Finnish

Tässä tilanteessa Tribunal administratif on päättänyt lykätä asian käsittelyä ja esittää unionin tuomioistuimelle seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen:
”Onko 24.7.2014 annetun lain 3 §:n 5 momentin b kohdassa Luxemburgin suurherttuakunnan ulkopuolella asuville opiskelijoille asetettu edellytys, jonka mukaan heidän on oltava sellaisten työntekijöiden lapsia, jotka ovat työskennelleet palkkatyöntekijöinä tai itsenäisinä ammatinharjoittajina Luxemburgissa vähintään viiden vuoden ajan seitsemän vuoden viitekautena sinä ajankohtana, jona taloudellista tukea haetaan, eikä huomioon oteta mitään muita liityntäperusteita, tarpeen Luxemburgin lainsäätäjän esittämän sen tavoitteen saavuttamiseksi, joka on saada lisättyä korkeakoulututkinnon suorittaneiden henkilöiden osuutta?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Luxemburgin lainsäätäjän"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "unionin tuomioistuimelle"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Luxemburgin lainsäätäjän"->"seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen";
  "seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"unionin tuomioistuimelle";
  "Luxemburgin lainsäätäjän"->"lykätä asian käsittelyä"[dir=none];
  "seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"Onko 24.7.2014 annetun lain 3 §:n 5 momentin b kohdassa Luxemburgin suurherttuakunnan ulkopuolella asuville opiskelijoille asetettu edellytys, jonka mukaan heidän on oltava sellaisten työntekijöiden lapsia, jotka ovat työskennelleet palkkatyöntekijöinä tai itsenäisinä ammatinharjoittajina Luxemburgissa vähintään viiden vuoden ajan seitsemän vuoden viitekautena sinä ajankohtana, jona taloudellista tukea haetaan, eikä huomioon oteta mitään muita liityntäperusteita, tarpeen Luxemburgin lainsäätäjän esittämän sen tavoitteen saavuttamiseksi, joka on saada lisättyä korkeakoulututkinnon suorittaneiden henkilöiden osuutta?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019
Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality
Case C-410/40 (2019)
Language: Swedish

Mot denna bakgrund beslutade Tribunal administratif (Förvaltningsrätten, Luxemburg) att vilandeförklara målet och ställa följande tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen:
”Ska det villkor som föreskrivs för studenter som inte är bosatta i Storhertigdömet Luxemburg i artikel 3.5 b i lagen av den 24 juli 2014 – som innebär att inga andra anknytningskriterier beaktas, det vill säga att vara barn till arbetstagare som varit anställda eller utövat sin verksamhet i Luxemburg under en period om minst fem år under en referensperiod på sju år då ansökan om studiemed lämnades in – anses vara nödvändigt för att uppnå det syfte som den luxemburgska lagstiftaren har anfört, nämligen att öka antalet personer med examen från högre utbildning bland landets befolkning?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Luxemburgska lagstiftaren"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "EU-domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Luxemburgska lagstiftaren"->"följande tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen";
  "följande tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen"->"EU-domstolen";
  "Luxemburgska lagstiftaren"->"vilandeförklara målet"[dir=none];
  "följande tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen"->"Ska det villkor som föreskrivs för studenter som inte är bosatta i Storhertigdömet Luxemburg i artikel 3.5 b i lagen av den 24 juli 2014 – som innebär att inga andra anknytningskriterier beaktas, det vill säga att vara barn till arbetstagare som varit anställda eller utövat sin verksamhet i Luxemburg under en period om minst fem år under en referensperiod på sju år då ansökan om studiemed lämnades in – anses vara nödvändigt för att uppnå det syfte som den luxemburgska lagstiftaren har anfört, nämligen att öka antalet personer med examen från högre utbildning bland landets befolkning?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: English

Addiko Bank and Mr Aleš Kuhar and Mr Jožef Kuhar concluded a mortgage contract, in the form of a directly enforceable notarial instrument, to fund the purchase of a residential property (‘the notarial instrument at issue’). The loan was denominated in Swiss francs (CHF), but the Kuhars were required to make the monthly repayments in euros, at the reference rate of the European Central Bank (ECB) on the day of payment. The interest rate was linked to the six-month CHF LIBOR rate.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Mr Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Mr Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Addiko Bank"->"Mr Jožef Kuhar"[label="A mortgage contract"dir=none];
   "Addiko Bank"->"Mr Aleš Kuhar"[label="A mortgage contract"dir=none];
   "Mr Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="Monthly repayments in euros"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

Addiko Bank и г‑да Kuhar сключват договор за ипотечен кредит във формата на подлежащ на пряко изпълнение нотариален акт, като кредитът е предназначен за финансирането на покупка на жилище (наричан по-нататък „разглежданият нотариален акт). Кредитът е отпуснат в швейцарски франкове (CHF), но г‑да Kuhar били длъжни да погасяват вноските в евро по референтния обменен курс на Европейската централна банка (ЕЦБ) в деня на плащането. Лихвите са обвързани с шестмесечния лихвен процент CHF LIBOR.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "г‑да Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "г‑да Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"г‑да Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="договор за ипотечен кредит"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"г‑да Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="договор за ипотечен кредит"dir=none];
  "г‑да Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="г‑да Kuhar били длъжни да погасяват вноските в евро"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Spanish

Addiko Bank y los Sres. Kuhar celebraron, mediante documento notarial directamente ejecutivo (en lo sucesivo, «documento notarial en cuestión»), un contrato de crédito hipotecario destinado a financiar la compra de una vivienda. El crédito estaba denominado en francos suizos (CHF), pero los Sres. Kuhar debían reembolsarlo mediante el abono de cuotas mensuales en euros, al tipo de cambio de referencia del Banco Central Europeo (BCE) del día del pago. El tipo de interés estaba ligado a la tasa de referencia LIBOR CHF a seis meses.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sres. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sres. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"Sres. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="un contrato de crédito hipotecario"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"Sres. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="un contrato de crédito hipotecario"dir=none];
  "Sres. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="el abono de cuotas mensuales en euros"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Czech

Addiko Bank a A. a J. Kuharovi uzavřeli smlouvu o hypotéčním úvěru formou přímo vykonatelného notářského zápisu, jenž byl určen k financování koupě nemovitosti určené k bydlení (dále jen „dotčený notářský zápis“). Úvěr byl vyjádřen ve švýcarských francích (CHF), avšak A. a J. Kuharovi byli povinni hradit splátky v eurech podle referenčního směnného kurzu Evropské centrální banky (ECB) platného k datu platby. Úroková sazba byla navázána na šestiměsíční úrokovou sazbu švýcarského franku LIBORCHF.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. a J. Kuharovi Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. a J. Kuharovi Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. a J. Kuharovi Jožef Kuhar"[label="smlouvu o hypotéčním úvěru"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. a J. Kuharovi Aleš Kuhar"[label="smlouvu o hypotéčním úvěru"dir=none];
  "A. a J. Kuharovi Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="hradit splátky v eurech"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Danish

Addiko Bank og Aleš og Jožef Kuhar indgik med et umiddelbart eksigibelt notarielt dokument en låneaftale med sikkerhed i fast ejendom med henblik på finansiering af et boligkøb (herefter »det omhandlede notarielle dokument«). Lånet blev optaget i schweiziske franc (CHF), men Aleš og Jožef Kuhar skulle betale de månedlige rater i euro i overensstemmelse med Den Europæiske Centralbanks (ECB) referencesats på betalingsdagen. Lånets hovedstol er knyttet til den halvårlige referenceværdi CHF Libor.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Aleš og Jožef Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Aleš og Jožef Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"Aleš og Jožef Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="en låneaftale med sikkerhed i fast ejendom"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"Aleš og Jožef Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="en låneaftale med sikkerhed i fast ejendom"dir=none];
  "Aleš og Jožef Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="betale de månedlige rater i euro"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: German

Die Addiko Bank und die Kläger schlossen in Form einer unmittelbar vollstreckbaren notariellen Urkunde einen Hypothekenkreditvertrag, mit dem der Kauf einer Wohnung finanziert werden sollte (im Folgenden: in Rede stehende notarielle Urkunde). Der Kredit war an den Schweizer Franken (CHF) gebunden, aber die Kläger waren verpflichtet, die Raten in Euro zum Referenzzinssatz der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB) am Zahlungstag zu bezahlen. Referenzzinssatz für die Verzinsung war der CHF LIBOR für sechs Monate.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Herr Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Herr Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"Herr Jožef Kuhar"[label="einen Hypothekenkreditvertrag"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"Herr Aleš Kuhar"[label="einen Hypothekenkreditvertrag"dir=none];
  "Herr Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="die Raten in Euro"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Estonian

Addiko Bank ning A. ja J. Kuhar sõlmisid eluaseme ostu rahastamiseks hüpoteeklaenulepingu kohesele täitmisele pööratava notariaalakti vormis (edaspidi „vaidlusalune notariaalakt“). Laenukohustus oli nomineeritud Šveitsi frankides (CHF), kuid A. ja J. Kuhar pidid igakuiseid laenu tagasimakseid tasuma eurodes Euroopa Keskpanga (EKP) vahetuskursiga, mis kehtib tasumise päeval. Tasu laenu põhisumma eest oli seotud 6 kuu intressimääraga CHF LIBOR.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. ja J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. ja J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. ja J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="hüpoteeklaenulepingu"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. ja J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="hüpoteeklaenulepingu"dir=none];
  "A. ja J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="igakuiseid laenu tagasimakseid tasuma eurodes"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Greek

Η Addiko Bank και οι Α. και J. Kuhar συνήψαν μεταξύ τους σύμβαση ενυπόθηκης πίστωσης, περιβληθείσα τον τύπο άμεσα εκτελεστού συμβολαιογραφικού εγγράφου, για τη χρηματοδότηση της αγοράς κατοικίας (στο εξής: επίμαχη συμβολαιογραφική πράξη). Η πίστωση ήταν εκπεφρασμένη σε ελβετικά φράγκα (CHF), πλην όμως οι Α. και J. Kuhar όφειλαν να εξοφλήσουν τις μηνιαίες δόσεις αποπληρωμής σε ευρώ, σύμφωνα με τη συναλλαγματική ισοτιμία αναφοράς της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας (ΕΚΤ) της ημέρας της πληρωμής. Το επιτόκιο ήταν συνδεδεμένο με το επιτόκιο Libor CHF διάρκειας έξι μηνών.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="σύμβαση ενυπόθηκης πίστωσης"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="σύμβαση ενυπόθηκης πίστωσης"dir=none];
  "J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="μηνιαίες δόσεις αποπληρωμής σε ευρώ"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: French

Addiko Bank et MM. Kuhar ont conclu un contrat de crédit hypothécaire, sous la forme d’un acte notarié directement exécutoire, destiné à financer l’achat d’un logement (ci-après l’« acte notarié en cause »). Le crédit était libellé en francs suisses (CHF), mais MM. Kuhar devaient acquitter les mensualités de remboursement en euros, au cours de référence de la Banque centrale européenne (BCE) du jour du paiement. Le taux d’intérêt était lié au taux LIBOR CHF à six mois.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "MM. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "MM. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"MM. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="un contrat de crédit hypothécaire"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"MM. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="un contrat de crédit hypothécaire"dir=none];
  "MM. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="les mensualités de remboursement en euros"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Croatian

Addiko Bank, s jedne strane, te A. i J. Kuhar, s druge strane, sklopili su ugovor o hipotekarnom kreditu u obliku neposredno izvršivog javnobilježničkog akta radi financiranja kupnje stana (u daljnjem tekstu: predmetni javnobilježnički akt). Kredit je bio izražen u švicarskim francima (CHF), ali su A. i J. Kuhar rate morali otplaćivati u eurima po referentnom tečaju Europske središnje banke na plan uplate. Kamatna stopa bila je vezana za stopu šestomjesečnog LIBOR CHF‑a.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. i J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. i J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. i J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="ugovor o hipotekarnom kreditu"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. i J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="ugovor o hipotekarnom kreditu"dir=none];
  "A. i J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="A. i J. Kuhar rate morali otplaćivati u eurima"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Italian

La Addiko Bank e i sigg. Kuhar hanno stipulato un contratto di mutuo ipotecario, sotto forma di un atto notarile direttamente esecutivo, destinato a finanziare l’acquisto di un’abitazione (in prosieguo: l’«atto notarile di cui trattasi»). Il credito era espresso in franchi svizzeri (CHF); tuttavia i sigg. Kuhar erano tenuti al pagamento delle rate mensili di rimborso in euro, al tasso di riferimento della Banca centrale europea (BCE) alla data del pagamento. Il tasso d’interesse era collegato al tasso LIBOR CHF a sei mesi.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="un contratto di mutuo ipotecario"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="un contratto di mutuo ipotecario"dir=none];
  "Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="rate mensili di rimborso in euro"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Latvian

Addiko Bank un A. un J. Kuhar noslēdza hipotekārā kredīta līgumu mājokļa iegādes finansēšanai tieši izpildāma notariālā akta formā (turpmāk tekstā – “attiecīgais notariālais akts”). Kredīts bija izteikts Šveices frankos (CHF), bet A. un J. Kuhar bija jāveic atmaksas ikmēneša maksājumi euro pēc Eiropas Centrālās bankas (ECB) valūtas maiņas kursa maksājuma dienā. Procentu likme bija piesaistīta sešu mēnešu CHF LIBOR likmei.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. un J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. un J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. un J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="hipotekārā kredīta līgumu"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. un J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="hipotekārā kredīta līgumu"dir=none];
  "A. un J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="atmaksas ikmēneša maksājumi euro"];   
}
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2019.
Aleš Kuhar and Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Proceedings for enforcement of a mortgage claim — Directly enforceable notarial instrument — Judicial review of unfair terms — Suspension of enforcement — Lack of competence of the court before which the application for enforcement has been brought — Consumer protection — Principle of effectiveness — Interpretation in conformity with EU law.
Case C-407/18. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Addiko Bank ir A. bei J. Kuhar pasirašė hipoteka užtikrintą paskolos sutartį, kuri buvo įforminta tiesiogiai vykdytinu notariniu aktu ir kuri buvo skirta finansuoti būsto pirkimui (toliau – ginčijamas notarinis aktas). Paskola buvo išreikšta Šveicarijos frankais (CHF), bet mėnesines grąžinimo įmokas A. ir J. Kuhar turėjo atlikti eurais pagal mokėjimo dieną galiojantį Europos Centrinio Banko nustatytą valiutos kursą. Palūkanų norma buvo susieta su šešių mėnesių LIBOR CHF palūkanų norma.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Addiko Bank"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. bei J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "A. bei J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. bei J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"[label="hipoteka užtikrintą paskolos sutartį"dir=none];
  "Addiko Bank"->"A. bei J. Kuhar Aleš Kuhar"[label="hipoteka užtikrintą paskolos sutartį"dir=none];
  "A. bei J. Kuhar Jožef Kuhar"->"Addiko Bank"[label="mėnesines grąžinimo įmokas eurais"];   
}