mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Dutch

De rechter in eerste aanleg heeft die vordering niet toegewezen. Hij heeft met name geoordeeld dat de door Home Credit aan RN verstrekte lening een consumentenkrediet was, waarvan de overeenkomst alle in § 9, lid 2, van wet nr. 129/2010 vereiste vermeldingen bevatte. Hij heeft eveneens geoordeeld dat de overeenkomst niet uitdrukkelijk het JKP moest vermelden in de vorm van één enkel percentage, en dat het onevenredig zou zijn om de kredietgever te straffen door te verklaren dat de lening zonder rente noch kosten wordt geacht te zijn verleend om de enkele reden dat het JKP is uitgedrukt als een percentage dat binnen een bereik tussen twee waarden (van-tot) ligt.
Nadat RN bij de verwijzende rechter hoger beroep heeft ingesteld, vraagt deze zich af of de vaststelling van het JKP door middel van een dergelijk bereik in strijd is met richtlijn 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "De rechter in eerste aanleg"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "de verwijzende rechter"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "De rechter in eerste aanleg"->"RN"[label="niet toegewezen"];
  "RN"->"hoger beroep";
  "hoger beroep"->"de verwijzende rechter";
  "hoger beroep"->"2008/48. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Polish

Żądania tego sąd pierwszej instancji nie uwzględnił. Sąd ten uznał w szczególności, że kredyt udzielony RN przez Home Credit był kredytem konsumenckim, a umowa o kredyt zawierała wszystkie informacje wymagane w § 9 ust. 2 ustawy nr 129/2010. Sąd ten orzekł również, że nie jest konieczne wyraźne wskazanie w umowie RRSO za pomocą odniesienia do pojedynczej stopy oraz że nieproporcjonalne byłoby karanie kredytodawcy poprzez uznanie kredytu za nieoprocentowany i bezpłatny tylko dlatego, że RRSO została podana jako stopa oprocentowania mieszcząca się w przedziale między dwiema wartościami (od – do).
RN wniósł apelację do sądu odsyłającego, który zastanawia się, czy określenie RRSO za pomocą takiego przedziału jest sprzeczne z dyrektywą 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "sąd pierwszej instancji"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "sąd odsyłający"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "sąd pierwszej instancji"->"RN"[label="nie uwzględnił"];
  "RN"->"apelację";
  "apelację"->"sąd odsyłający";
  "apelację"->"czy określenie RRSO za pomocą takiego przedziału jest sprzeczne z dyrektywą 2008/48. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

Este pedido não foi acolhido pelo órgão jurisdicional de primeira instância. Este considerou nomeadamente que o empréstimo concedido a RN pela Home Credit era um crédito ao consumo, cujo contrato continha todas as menções exigidas no artigo 9.o, n.o 2, da Lei n.o 129/2010. Considerou igualmente que o contrato não devia mencionar expressamente a TAEG com referência a uma taxa única e que seria desproporcionado penalizar o mutuante declarando que o empréstimo se presumia sem juros nem encargos apenas pelo motivo de a TAEG ser expressa por uma taxa que se situa num intervalo entre dois valores (mínimo‑máximo).
Tendo RN interposto recurso para o órgão jurisdicional de reenvio, este interroga‑se sobre se a fixação da TAEG através desse intervalo é contrária à Diretiva 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "órgão jurisdicional de primeira instância"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "o órgão jurisdicional de reenvio"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "órgão jurisdicional de primeira instância"->"RN"[label="não foi acolhido"];
  "RN"->"recurso";
  "recurso"->"o órgão jurisdicional de reenvio";
  "recurso"->"se a fixação da TAEG através desse intervalo é contrária à Diretiva 2008/48. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Romanian

Această cerere nu a fost admisă de instanța de prim grad. Aceasta a considerat, printre altele, că creditul acordat de Home Credit lui RN este un credit de consum al cărui contract conține toate mențiunile impuse la articolul 9 alineatul 2 din Legea nr. 129/2010. De asemenea, aceasta a apreciat că nu este necesar ca în contract să se indice DAE în mod expres printr‑o rată unică și că ar fi disproporționat să se sancționeze creditorul prin considerarea creditului ca fiind scutit de dobânzi și de costuri doar pentru că DAE este indicată sub forma unui interval între două valori (minimă-maximă).
Întrucât RN a declarat apel la instanța de trimitere, aceasta ridică problema dacă stabilirea DAE prin intermediul unui astfel de interval este contrară Directivei 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "instanța de prim grad"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "instanța de trimitere"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "instanța de prim grad"->"RN"[label="nu a fost admisă"];
  "RN"->"apel";
  "apel"->"instanța de trimitere";
  "apel"->"dacă stabilirea DAE prin intermediul unui astfel de interval este contrară Directivei 2008/48. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Prvostupňový súd tomuto návrhu nevyhovel. Predovšetkým sa domnieval, že úver poskytnutý RN spoločnosťou Home Credit bol spotrebiteľským úverom a že zmluva o ňom obsahovala všetky náležitosti vyžadované podľa článku 9 ods. 2 zákona č. 129/2010. Rovnako dospel k záveru, že RPMN nemusí byť v zmluve uvedená jednoznačne jedným konkrétnym číslom a že by bolo neproporcionálne postihovať veriteľa tým, že sa úver bude považovať za bezúročný a bez poplatkov len preto, že RPMN je uvedená rozpätím dvoch údajov (od – do).
RN podal odvolanie na vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, v ktorom sa tento súd pýta, či je uvedenie RPMN prostredníctvom takéhoto rozpätia v rozpore so smernicou 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Prvostupňový súd"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "vnútroštátny súd"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Prvostupňový súd"->"RN"[label="nevyhovel"];
  "RN"->"odvolanie";
  "odvolanie"->"vnútroštátny súd";
  "odvolanie"->"či je uvedenie RPMN prostredníctvom takéhoto rozpätia v rozpore so smernicou 2008/48. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

Prvostopenjsko sodišče temu zahtevku ni ugodilo. To sodišče je med drugim ugotovilo, da je bil kredit, ki ga je osebi RN odobrila družba Home Credit, potrošniški kredit in da je kreditna pogodba vsebovala vse podatke, zahtevane v členu 9(2) zakona št. 129/2010. To sodišče je tudi razsodilo, da v pogodbi ni bilo treba izrecno navesti EOM z enotno stopnjo in da bi bilo nesorazmerno sankcionirati dajalca kredita tako, da bi se ugotovilo, da je bil kredit odobren brez obresti in stroškov zgolj zato, ker je bila EOM izražena kot stopnja v razponu dveh vrednosti (od do).
Predložitveno sodišče, pri katerem je oseba RN vložila pritožbo, se sprašuje, ali je določitev EOM v takem razponu v nasprotju z Direktivo 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Prvostopenjsko sodišče"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Predložitveno sodišče"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Prvostopenjsko sodišče"->"RN"[label="Prvostopenjsko sodišče temu zahtevku ni ugodilo."];
  "RN"->"pritožbo";
  "pritožbo"->"Predložitveno sodišče";
  "pritožbo"->"ali je določitev EOM v takem razponu v nasprotju z Direktivo 2008/48. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Finnish

Ensimmäisen asteen tuomioistuin ei hyväksynyt tätä vaatimusta. Se katsoi muun muassa, että Home Creditin RN:lle myöntämä laina oli kulutusluotto, jota koskeva sopimus sisältää kaikki lain nro 129/2010 9 §:n 2 momentissa vaaditut tiedot. Se totesi myös, että todellista korkokantaa ei ole nimenomaisesti mainittava sopimuksessa yhtenä ainoana korkokantana ja että olisi kohtuutonta sanktioida luotonantajaa pitämällä luottoa korottomana ja kuluttomana vain siitä syystä, että todellinen vuosikorko on ilmaistu kahden arvon (vähimmäismäärä ja enimmäismäärä) väliseen vaihteluväliin sijoittuvana korkokantana.
RN:n valitettua ratkaisusta ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneeseen tuomioistuimeen kyseinen tuomioistuin pohtii, onko todellisen vuosikoron ilmoittaminen tällaisen vaihteluvälin avulla direktiivin 2008/48 vastaista.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Ensimmäisen asteen tuomioistuin"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneeseen tuomioistuimeen"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Ensimmäisen asteen tuomioistuin"->"RN"[label="ei hyväksynyt"];
  "RN"->"RN:n valitettua ratkaisusta";
  "RN:n valitettua ratkaisusta"->"ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneeseen tuomioistuimeen";
  "RN:n valitettua ratkaisusta"->"onko todellisen vuosikoron ilmoittaminen tällaisen vaihteluvälin avulla direktiivin 2008/48 vastaista. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Detta yrkande bifölls inte av domstolen i första instans. Nämna domstol ansåg bland annat att det lån som Home Credit hade beviljat RN var en konsumentkredit, och att avtalet innehöll alla de uppgifter som krävs enligt 9 § punkt 2 i lag nr 129/2010. Den förklarade även att den effektiva räntan inte uttryckligen behöver anges som en enhetlig räntesats och att det vore oproportionerligt att bestraffa kreditgivaren genom att förklara att lånet ska anses vara ränte- och avgiftsfritt enbart på grund av den omständigheten att den effektiva räntan uttrycks med en räntesats som ligger inom ett intervall av två värden (från–till).
RN överklagade detta avgörande till den hänskjutande domstolen, vilken är osäker på huruvida det strider mot direktiv 2008/48 att den effektiva räntan anges som ett sådant intervall.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "domstolen i första instans"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "den hänskjutande domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "domstolen i första instans"->"RN"[label="Detta yrkande bifölls inte av domstolen i första instans."];
  "RN"->"överklagade";
  "överklagade"->"den hänskjutande domstolen";
  "överklagade"->"huruvida det strider mot direktiv 2008/48 att den effektiva räntan anges som ett sådant intervall. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: English

In those circumstances, the Krajský súd v Trnave (Regional Court, Trnava, Slovakia) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is Article 10[(2)](g) of Directive [2008/48] to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer credit agreement satisfies the requirement laid down in that provision if the [APRC] is indicated in the agreement, not as a specific percentage, but as a range between two figures (from‑to)?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Krajský súd v Trnave (Regional Court, Trnava, Slovakia)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Krajský súd v Trnave (Regional Court, Trnava, Slovakia)"->"Question for a preliminary ruling";
   "Question for a preliminary ruling"->"The Court of Justice";
   "Question for a preliminary ruling"->"Is Article 10[(2)](g) of Directive [2008/48] to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer credit agreement satisfies the requirement laid down in that provision if the [APRC] is indicated in the agreement, not as a specific percentage, but as a range between two figures (from‑to)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

При тези обстоятелства Krajský súd v Trnave (Окръжен съд Търнава, Словакия) решава да спре производството и да постави на Съда следния преюдициален въпрос:

„Следва ли член 10, параграф [2], буква ж) от Директива [2008/48] да се тълкува в смисъл, че договорът за потребителски кредит отговаря на изискването, предвидено в тази разпоредба, в случай че [ГПР] е посочен в него не с точен процент, а като диапазон между две стойности (от—до)?“.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Окръжен съд Търнава, Словакия)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Съда"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Окръжен съд Търнава, Словакия)"->"преюдициален въпрос";
  "преюдициален въпрос"->"Съда";
  "преюдициален въпрос"->"Следва ли член 10, параграф [2], буква ж) от Директива [2008/48] да се тълкува в смисъл, че договорът за потребителски кредит отговаря на изискването, предвидено в тази разпоредба, в случай че [ГПР] е посочен в него не с точен процент, а като диапазон между две стойности (от—до)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Spanish

En tales circunstancias, el Krajský súd v Trnave (Tribunal Regional de Trnava, Eslovaquia) decidió suspender el procedimiento y plantear al Tribunal de Justicia la siguiente cuestión prejudicial:

«¿Debe interpretarse el artículo 10, [apartado 2], letra g), de la Directiva [2008/48] en el sentido de que el contrato de crédito al consumo cumple el requisito establecido en dicha disposición cuando la [TAE] se indique en el mismo no mediante un porcentaje concreto, sino mediante una horquilla de dos valores (mínimo — máximo)?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Tribunal Regional de Trnava, Eslovaquia)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tribunal de Justicia"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Tribunal Regional de Trnava, Eslovaquia)"->"la siguiente cuestión prejudicial";
  "la siguiente cuestión prejudicial"->"Tribunal de Justicia";
  "la siguiente cuestión prejudicial"->"¿Debe interpretarse el artículo 10, [apartado 2], letra g), de la Directiva [2008/48] en el sentido de que el contrato de crédito al consumo cumple el requisito establecido en dicha disposición cuando la [TAE] se indique en el mismo no mediante un porcentaje concreto, sino mediante una horquilla de dos valores (mínimo — máximo)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Czech

Za těchto podmínek se Krajský súd v Trnavě (Slovensko) rozhodl přerušit řízení a položit Soudnímu dvoru následující předběžnou otázku:

„Má být čl. 10 [odst. 2] písm. g) směrnice [2008/48] vykládán v tom smyslu, že požadavek uvedený v tomto ustanovení splňuje smlouva o spotřebitelském úvěru, v níž není [RPSN] uvedena jako přesný procentní údaj, ale jako rozpětí dvou hodnot (minimální – maximální)?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave Krajský súd v Trnavě (Slovensko)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Soudnímu dvoru"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave Krajský súd v Trnavě (Slovensko)"->"„Má být čl. 10 [odst. 2] písm. g) směrnice [2008/48] vykládán v tom smyslu, že požadavek uvedený v tomto ustanovení splňuje smlouva o spotřebitelském úvěru, v níž není [RPSN] uvedena jako přesný procentní údaj, ale jako rozpětí dvou hodnot (minimální – maximální)?“";
  "„Má být čl. 10 [odst. 2] písm. g) směrnice [2008/48] vykládán v tom smyslu, že požadavek uvedený v tomto ustanovení splňuje smlouva o spotřebitelském úvěru, v níž není [RPSN] uvedena jako přesný procentní údaj, ale jako rozpětí dvou hodnot (minimální – maximální)?“"->"Soudnímu dvoru";
  "„Má být čl. 10 [odst. 2] písm. g) směrnice [2008/48] vykládán v tom smyslu, že požadavek uvedený v tomto ustanovení splňuje smlouva o spotřebitelském úvěru, v níž není [RPSN] uvedena jako přesný procentní údaj, ale jako rozpětí dvou hodnot (minimální – maximální)?“"->"Má být čl. 10 [odst. 2] písm. g) směrnice [2008/48] vykládán v tom smyslu, že požadavek uvedený v tomto ustanovení splňuje smlouva o spotřebitelském úvěru, v níž není [RPSN] uvedena jako přesný procentní údaj, ale jako rozpětí dvou hodnot (minimální – maximální)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Danish

På denne baggrund har Krajský súd v Trnave (retten for regionen Trnava, Slovakiet) besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:

»Skal artikel 10, [stk. 2], litra g), i [direktiv 2008/48] fortolkes således, at en forbrugerkreditaftale opfylder det i bestemmelsen fastsatte krav, såfremt [ÅOP] angives i aftalen med et interval mellem to værdier (fra – til) og ikke med en nøjagtig procentsats?«

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (retten for regionen Trnava, Slovakiet)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (retten for regionen Trnava, Slovakiet)"->"præjudicielle spørgsmål";
  "præjudicielle spørgsmål"->"Domstolen";
  "præjudicielle spørgsmål"->"Skal artikel 10, [stk. 2], litra g), i [direktiv 2008/48] fortolkes således, at en forbrugerkreditaftale opfylder det i bestemmelsen fastsatte krav, såfremt [ÅOP] angives i aftalen med et interval mellem to værdier (fra – til) og ikke med en nøjagtig procentsats?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: German

Unter diesen Umständen hat der Krajský súd v Trnave (Regionalgericht Trnava, Slowakei) beschlossen, das Verfahren auszusetzen und dem Gerichtshof folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen:

Ist Art. 10 Abs. 2 Buchst. g der Richtlinie 2008/48 dahin auszulegen, dass ein Verbraucherkreditvertrag das in dieser Bestimmung genannte Erfordernis erfüllt, wenn in ihm der effektive Jahreszins nicht in Form einer Angabe in Prozent, sondern vielmehr in Form einer Marge zwischen zwei Angaben (von – bis) genannt ist?

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Regionalgericht Trnava, Slowakei)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "der Gerichtshof"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Regionalgericht Trnava, Slowakei)"->"Frage zur Vorabentscheidung";
  "Frage zur Vorabentscheidung"->"der Gerichtshof";
  "Frage zur Vorabentscheidung"->"Ist Art. 10 Abs. 2 Buchst. g der Richtlinie 2008/48 dahin auszulegen, dass ein Verbraucherkreditvertrag das in dieser Bestimmung genannte Erfordernis erfüllt, wenn in ihm der effektive Jahreszins nicht in Form einer Angabe in Prozent, sondern vielmehr in Form einer Marge zwischen zwei Angaben (von – bis) genannt ist?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Estonian

Neil asjaoludel otsustas Krajský súd v Trnave (Trnava maakonnakohus, Slovakkia) menetluse peatada ja esitada Euroopa Kohtule järgmise eelotsuse küsimuse:

„Kas [direktiivi 2008/48] artikli 10 lõike [2] punkti g tuleb tõlgendada nii, et tarbijakrediidileping vastab selle õigusnormiga kehtestatud nõudele juhul, kui krediidi kulukuse aastamäär ei ole selles näidatud mitte täpse protsendilise väärtusena, vaid kahe väärtuse vahemikuna (miinimum-maksimum)?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Trnava maakonnakohus, Slovakkia)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Euroopa Kohutule"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Trnava maakonnakohus, Slovakkia)"->"eelotsuse küsimus";
  "eelotsuse küsimus"->"Euroopa Kohutule";
  "eelotsuse küsimus"->"Kas [direktiivi 2008/48] artikli 10 lõike [2] punkti g tuleb tõlgendada nii, et tarbijakrediidileping vastab selle õigusnormiga kehtestatud nõudele juhul, kui krediidi kulukuse aastamäär ei ole selles näidatud mitte täpse protsendilise väärtusena, vaid kahe väärtuse vahemikuna (miinimum-maksimum)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Greek

Υπό τις συνθήκες αυτές, το Krajský súd v Trnave (περιφερειακό δικαστήριο Trnava, Σλοβακία) αποφάσισε να αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία και να υποβάλει στο Δικαστήριο το ακόλουθο προδικαστικό ερώτημα:

«Έχει το άρθρο 10, [παράγραφος 2], στοιχείο ζʹ, της οδηγίας [2008/48] την έννοια ότι η σύμβαση καταναλωτικής πίστης πληροί τις προβλεπόμενες από την εν λόγω διάταξη προϋποθέσεις σε περίπτωση που το [ΣΕΠΕ] προσδιορίζεται σε αυτή με αναφορά όχι σε ένα συγκεκριμένο ποσοστό, αλλά σε εύρος συντελεστή μεταξύ δύο τιμών (ανώτατης-κατώτατης τιμής);»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (περιφερειακό δικαστήριο Trnava, Σλοβακία)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Δικαστήριο"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (περιφερειακό δικαστήριο Trnava, Σλοβακία)"->"προδικαστικό ερώτημα";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Δικαστήριο";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Έχει το άρθρο 10, [παράγραφος 2], στοιχείο ζʹ, της οδηγίας [2008/48] την έννοια ότι η σύμβαση καταναλωτικής πίστης πληροί τις προβλεπόμενες από την εν λόγω διάταξη προϋποθέσεις σε περίπτωση που το [ΣΕΠΕ] προσδιορίζεται σε αυτή με αναφορά όχι σε ένα συγκεκριμένο ποσοστό, αλλά σε εύρος συντελεστή μεταξύ δύο τιμών (ανώτατης-κατώτατης τιμής);"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: French

Dans ces conditions, le Krajský súd v Trnave (cour régionale de Trnava, Slovaquie) a décidé de surseoir à statuer et de poser à la Cour la question préjudicielle suivante :

« L’article 10, [paragraphe 2], sous g), de la directive [2008/48] doit-il être interprété en ce sens que satisfait à l’exigence prévue audit article un contrat de crédit aux consommateurs qui indique le [TAEG] non pas par un pourcentage précis, mais par une fourchette de deux valeurs (minimale-maximale) ? »

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (cour régionale de Trnava, Slovaquie)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la Cour"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (cour régionale de Trnava, Slovaquie)"->"la question préjudicielle suivante";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"la Cour";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"L’article 10, [paragraphe 2], sous g), de la directive [2008/48] doit-il être interprété en ce sens que satisfait à l’exigence prévue audit article un contrat de crédit aux consommateurs qui indique le [TAEG] non pas par un pourcentage précis, mais par une fourchette de deux valeurs (minimale-maximale)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Croatian

U tim je okolnostima Krajský súd v Trnave (Okružni sud u Trnavi, Slovačka) odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje:

„Treba li članak 10. [stavak 2.] točku (g) Direktive [2008/48/EZ] tumačiti na način da ugovor o potrošačkom kreditu ispunjava zahtjev predviđen u toj odredbi u slučaju kad [EGKS] u njemu nije naveden kao točan postotak nego u rasponu između dvije vrijednosti (od – do)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Okružni sud u Trnavi, Slovačka)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sudu"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Okružni sud u Trnavi, Slovačka)"->"prethodno pitanje";
  "prethodno pitanje"->"Sudu";
  "prethodno pitanje"->"Treba li članak 10. [stavak 2.] točku (g) Direktive [2008/48/EZ] tumačiti na način da ugovor o potrošačkom kreditu ispunjava zahtjev predviđen u toj odredbi u slučaju kad [EGKS] u njemu nije naveden kao točan postotak nego u rasponu između dvije vrijednosti (od – do)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Italian

In tali circostanze, il Krajský súd v Trnave (Corte regionale di Trnava, Slovacchia) ha deciso di sospendere il procedimento e di sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale:

«Se l’articolo 10, [paragrafo 2], lettera g), della direttiva [2008/48] debba interpretarsi nel senso che il contratto di credito ai consumatori soddisfa il requisito previsto in tale disposizione nel caso in cui il [TAEG] è in esso indicato non con un preciso dato percentuale ma mediante un intervallo tra due dati (da - a)».

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Corte regionale di Trnava, Slovacchia)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la Corte"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Corte regionale di Trnava, Slovacchia)"->"questione pregiudiziale";
  "questione pregiudiziale"->"la Corte";
  "questione pregiudiziale"->"Se l’articolo 10, [paragrafo 2], lettera g), della direttiva [2008/48] debba interpretarsi nel senso che il contratto di credito ai consumatori soddisfa il requisito previsto in tale disposizione nel caso in cui il [TAEG] è in esso indicato non con un preciso dato percentuale ma mediante un intervallo tra due dati (da - a)"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Latvian

Šādos apstākļos Krajský súd v Trnave (Apgabaltiesa Trnavā, Slovākija) nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:

“Vai [Direktīvas 2008/48] 10. panta 2. punkta g) apakšpunkts ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka patēriņa kredītlīgums atbilst minētajā tiesību normā paredzētajai prasībai gadījumā, kad [GPL] tajā ir norādīta nevis kā precīza procentuālā daļa, bet kā intervāls starp diviem lielumiem (minimālais – maksimālais)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Apgabaltiesa Trnavā, Slovākija)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Apgabaltiesa Trnavā, Slovākija)"->"prejudiciālu jautājumu";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Tiesai";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Vai [Direktīvas 2008/48] 10. panta 2. punkta g) apakšpunkts ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka patēriņa kredītlīgums atbilst minētajā tiesību normā paredzētajai prasībai gadījumā, kad [GPL] tajā ir norādīta nevis kā precīza procentuālā daļa, bet kā intervāls starp diviem lielumiem (minimālais – maksimālais)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Tokiomis aplinkybėmis Krajský súd v Trnave (Trnavos apygardos teismas, Slovakija) nutarė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui šį prejudicinį klausimą:

„Ar Direktyvos [2008/48] 10 straipsnio [2] dalies g punktas turi būti aiškinamas taip, kad šioje nuostatoje numatytas reikalavimas patenkinamas tuo atveju, kai vartojimo kredito sutartyje [BKKMN] nurodoma ne tiksliu procentiniu dydžiu, o kaip intervalas tarp dviejų dydžių (nuo–iki)?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Trnavos apygardos teismas, Slovakija)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Trnavos apygardos teismas, Slovakija)"->"prejudicinį klausimą";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "prejudicinį klausimą"->"Ar Direktyvos [2008/48] 10 straipsnio [2] dalies g punktas turi būti aiškinamas taip, kad šioje nuostatoje numatytas reikalavimas patenkinamas tuo atveju, kai vartojimo kredito sutartyje [BKKMN] nurodoma ne tiksliu procentiniu dydžiu, o kaip intervalas tarp dviejų dydžių (nuo–iki)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

E körülményekre tekintettel a Krajský súd v Trnave (nagyszombati regionális bíróság) úgy határozott, hogy az eljárást felfüggeszti, és előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé:

„Úgy kell‑e értelmezni a [2008/48] irányelv 10. cikke (2) bekezdésének g) pontját, hogy a fogyasztói hitelmegállapodás megfelel az említett rendelkezésben előírt követelménynek, ha a hitelmegállapodásban a [THM‑et] nem pontos százalékos érték, hanem egy sáv (-tól -ig) jelöli?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (nagyszombati regionális bíróság)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (nagyszombati regionális bíróság)"->"Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából"->"Bíróság";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából"->"Úgy kell‑e értelmezni a [2008/48] irányelv 10. cikke (2) bekezdésének g) pontját, hogy a fogyasztói hitelmegállapodás megfelel az említett rendelkezésben előírt követelménynek, ha a hitelmegállapodásban a [THM‑et] nem pontos százalékos érték, hanem egy sáv (-tól -ig) jelöli?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Maltese

F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, il-Krajský súd v Trnave (il-Qorti Reġjonali ta’ Trnave) iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċeduri quddiemha u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari li ġejja:

“L-Artikolu 10[(2)](g) tad-Direttiva [2008/48] għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li jissodisfa r-rekwiżit previst fl-imsemmi artikolu, ftehim ta’ kreditu għall-konsumaturi li jindika r-[RIPS] mhux permezz ta’ perċentwali speċifiku, iżda permezz ta’ medda ta’ bejn żewġ valuri (minimu-massimu)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (il-Qorti Reġjonali ta’ Trnave)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (il-Qorti Reġjonali ta’ Trnave)"->"d-domanda preliminari";
  "d-domanda preliminari"->"Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja";
  "d-domanda preliminari"->"L-Artikolu 10[(2)](g) tad-Direttiva [2008/48] għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li jissodisfa r-rekwiżit previst fl-imsemmi artikolu, ftehim ta’ kreditu għall-konsumaturi li jindika r-[RIPS] mhux permezz ta’ perċentwali speċifiku, iżda permezz ta’ medda ta’ bejn żewġ valuri (minimu-massimu)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Dutch

Daarop heeft de Krajský súd v Trnave (rechter in tweede aanleg Trnava, Slowakije) de behandeling van de zaak geschorst en het Hof verzocht om een prejudiciële beslissing over de volgende vraag:

„Moet artikel 10, [lid 2], onder g), van richtlijn [2008/48] aldus worden uitgelegd dat een consumentenkredietovereenkomst aan het in dat artikel neergelegde vereiste voldoet indien het [JKP] niet is aangeduid met een specifiek percentage maar met een bereik tussen twee waarden (van-tot)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):

digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Krajský súd v Trnava, Slowakije)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Hof"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Krajský súd v Trnava, Slowakije)"->"Moet artikel 10, [lid 2], onder g), van richtlijn [2008/48] aldus worden uitgelegd dat een consumentenkredietovereenkomst aan het in dat artikel neergelegde vereiste voldoet indien het [JKP] niet is aangeduid met een specifiek percentage maar met een bereik tussen twee waarden (van-tot)?";
  "Moet artikel 10, [lid 2], onder g), van richtlijn [2008/48] aldus worden uitgelegd dat een consumentenkredietovereenkomst aan het in dat artikel neergelegde vereiste voldoet indien het [JKP] niet is aangeduid met een specifiek percentage maar met een bereik tussen twee waarden (van-tot)?"->"Hof";
  "Moet artikel 10, [lid 2], onder g), van richtlijn [2008/48] aldus worden uitgelegd dat een consumentenkredietovereenkomst aan het in dat artikel neergelegde vereiste voldoet indien het [JKP] niet is aangeduid met een specifiek percentage maar met een bereik tussen twee waarden (van-tot)?"->"Moet artikel 10, [lid 2], onder g), van richtlijn [2008/48] aldus worden uitgelegd dat een consumentenkredietovereenkomst aan het in dat artikel neergelegde vereiste voldoet indien het [JKP] niet is aangeduid met een specifiek percentage maar met een bereik tussen twee waarden (van-tot)?" [dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Polish

W tych okolicznościach Krajský súd v Trnave (sąd okręgowy w Trnawie, Słowacja) postanowił zawiesić postępowanie i zwrócić się do Trybunału z następującym pytaniem prejudycjalnym:

„Czy art. 10 [ust. 2] lit. g) dyrektywy [2008/48] należy interpretować w ten sposób, że umowa o kredyt konsumencki spełnia wymóg określony w tym przepisie, jeżeli [RRSO] została w nim wskazana nie w postaci konkretnej liczby procentowej, lecz jako przedział między dwiema wartościami (od – do)?”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (sąd okręgowy w Trnawie, Słowacja)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Trybunał"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (sąd okręgowy w Trnawie, Słowacja)"->"pytaniem prejudycjalnym";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Trybunał";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Czy art. 10 [ust. 2] lit. g) dyrektywy [2008/48] należy interpretować w ten sposób, że umowa o kredyt konsumencki spełnia wymóg określony w tym przepisie, jeżeli [RRSO] została w nim wskazana nie w postaci konkretnej liczby procentowej, lecz jako przedział między dwiema wartościami (od – do)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

Nestas condições, o Krajský súd v Trnave (Tribunal Regional de Trnava, Eslováquia) decidiu suspender a instância e submeter ao Tribunal de Justiça a seguinte questão prejudicial:

«Deve o artigo 10.o, [n.o 2], alínea g), da Diretiva [2008/48] ser interpretado no sentido de que se pode considerar que um contrato de crédito ao consumo cumpre o requisito previsto nesta disposição quando a [TAEG] é indicada nesse contrato não através de uma percentagem específica, mas mediante um intervalo entre [dois valores (mínimo‑máximo)]?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Tribunal Regional de Trnava, Eslováquia)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tribunal de Justiça"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Tribunal Regional de Trnava, Eslováquia)"->"a seguinte questão prejudicial";
  "a seguinte questão prejudicial"->"Tribunal de Justiça";
  "a seguinte questão prejudicial"->"Deve o artigo 10.o, [n.o 2], alínea g), da Diretiva [2008/48] ser interpretado no sentido de que se pode considerar que um contrato de crédito ao consumo cumpre o requisito previsto nesta disposição quando a [TAEG] é indicada nesse contrato não através de uma percentagem específica, mas mediante um intervalo entre [dois valores (mínimo‑máximo)]?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Romanian

În aceste condiții, Krajský súd v Trnave (Curtea Regională din Trnava, Slovacia) a hotărât să suspende judecarea cauzei și să adreseze Curții următoarea întrebare preliminară:

„Articolul 10 [alineatul (2)] litera (g) din Directiva [2008/48] trebuie interpretat în sensul că un contract de credit pentru consumatori îndeplinește cerința prevăzută de această dispoziție în cazul în care [DAE] nu este indicată în acesta sub forma unei valori procentuale, ci sub forma unui interval între două valori (minimă-maximă)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Curtea Regională din Trnava, Slovacia)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Curții"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave (Curtea Regională din Trnava, Slovacia)"->"întrebare preliminară";
  "întrebare preliminară"->"Curții";
  "întrebare preliminară"->"Articolul 10 [alineatul (2)] litera (g) din Directiva [2008/48] trebuie interpretat în sensul că un contract de credit pentru consumatori îndeplinește cerința prevăzută de această dispoziție în cazul în care [DAE] nu este indicată în acesta sub forma unei valori procentuale, ci sub forma unui interval între două valori (minimă-maximă)?"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Za týchto podmienok Krajský súd v Trnave rozhodol prerušiť konanie a položiť Súdnemu dvoru túto prejudiciálnu otázku:

„Má sa článok 10 ods. 2 písm. g) smernice [2008/48] vykladať tak, že zmluva o spotrebiteľskom úvere zodpovedá požiadavke uvedenej v tomto ustanovení, ak [RPMN] je v nej uvedená nie presným údajom v percentách, ale rozpätím dvoch údajov (od – do)?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Krajský súd v Trnave Krajský súd v Trnave"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Súdnemu dvoru"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Krajský súd v Trnave Krajský súd v Trnave"->"prejudiciálnu otázku";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Súdnemu dvoru";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Má sa článok 10 ods. 2 písm. g) smernice [2008/48] vykladať tak, že zmluva o spotrebiteľskom úvere zodpovedá požiadavke uvedenej v tomto ustanovení, ak [RPMN] je v nej uvedená nie presným údajom v percentách, ale rozpätím dvoch údajov (od – do)?"[dir=none];
    
}