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: French

RN a toutefois engagé une action en répétition de l’indu contre Home Credit, au motif que le crédit aurait dû être considéré comme sans intérêts ni frais, dès lors que le TAEG avait été fixé dans le contrat non pas par un taux unique, mais par une fourchette renvoyant à un taux minimal et à un taux maximal. Ainsi, estimant ne devoir payer que le montant du prêt en capital, à savoir 3359,14 euros, RN a demandé le remboursement, au titre d’un enrichissement sans cause, de la somme de 1932,10 euros.

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

  "RN"->"RN a toutefois engagé une action en répétition de l’indu contre Home Credit";
  "RN a toutefois engagé une action en répétition de l’indu contre Home Credit"->"Home Credit";
  "RN a toutefois engagé une action en répétition de l’indu contre Home Credit"->"Le crédit aurait dû être considéré comme sans intérêts ni frais, dès lors que le TAEG avait été fixé dans le contrat non pas par un taux unique.."[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

Međutim, osoba RN je protiv društva Home Credit podnijela kondikcijsku tužbu jer se trebalo smatrati da je kredit oslobođen kamata i troškova s obzirom na to da EGKS u ugovoru nije bio utvrđen kao jedinstvena stopa, već u rasponu između dvije vrijednosti (od – do). Stoga je osoba RN, budući da je smatrala da je dužna platiti samo iznos glavnice kredita, tj. 3359,14 eura, zatražila povrat iznosa od 1932,10 eura na temelju stjecanja bez osnove.

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

  "RN"->"kondikcijsku tužbu";
  "kondikcijsku tužbu"->"Home Credit";
  "kondikcijsku tužbu"->"Kredit se trebalo smatrati da je oslobođen kamata i troškova s obzirom na to da EGKS u ugovoru nije bio utvrđen kao jedinstvena stopa.."[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

RN ha tuttavia avviato un’azione di ripetizione dell’indebito contro la Home Credit, per il motivo che il credito avrebbe dovuto essere considerato senza interessi né spese, dal momento che il TAEG era stato fissato nel contratto non con un tasso unico, ma mediante un intervallo che rinvia ad un tasso minimo e ad un tasso massimo. Pertanto, ritenendo di dover pagare solo l’importo del prestito in conto capitale, ossia EUR 3359,14, RN ha chiesto il rimborso, a titolo di arricchimento senza causa, della somma di EUR 1932,10.

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

  "RN"->"un’azione di ripetizione dell’indebito contro la Home Credit";
  "un’azione di ripetizione dell’indebito contro la Home Credit"->"Home Credit";
  "un’azione di ripetizione dell’indebito contro la Home Credit"->"Il credito avrebbe dovuto essere considerato senza interessi né spese, dal momento che il TAEG era stato fissato nel contratto non con un tasso unico.."[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

Tomēr RN cēla pret Home Credit prasību par nepamatotu maksājumu atgūšanu, tādēļ ka šis kredīts esot uzskatāms par kredītu bez procentiem un maksām, jo līgumā GPL bija noteikta nevis kā viena konkrēta likme, bet gan kā intervāls – no minimālās likmes līdz maksimālajai likmei. Tādējādi RN, uzskatīdams, ka viņam bija jāmaksā tikai aizdevuma pamatsumma, proti, 3359,14 EUR, prasīja atmaksāt viņam 1932,10 EUR, kas no viņa esot ieturēti nepamatotas iedzīvošanās kārtā.

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

  "RN"->"prasību";
  "prasību"->"Home Credit";
  "prasību"->"Šis kredīts esot uzskatāms par kredītu bez procentiem un maksām, jo līgumā GPL bija noteikta nevis kā viena konkrēta likme.."[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

Vis dėlto RN pareiškė Home Credit ieškinį dėl nepagrįstai sumokėtų sumų grąžinimo, motyvuodamas tuo, kad už kreditą neturėjo mokėti palūkanų ar padengti kitų išlaidų, nes sutartyje BKKMN buvo nustatyta ne kaip viena norma, o kaip intervalas nuo mažiausios iki didžiausios normos. Taigi, manydamas, kad turi sumokėti tik paskolos sumą, t. y. 3359,14 EUR, RN paprašė, remdamasis nepagrįstu praturtėjimu, grąžinti 1932,10 EUR sumą.

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

  "RN"->"ieškinį";
  "ieškinį"->"Home Credit";
  "ieškinį"->"kad už kreditą neturėjo mokėti palūkanų ar padengti kitų išlaidų, nes sutartyje BKKMN buvo nustatyta ne kaip viena norma."[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

RN mindazonáltal jogosulatlan kifizetés visszatérítése iránti keresetet indított a Home Credit ellen, azzal az indokkal, hogy a hitelt kamat‑ és költségmentesnek kellett tekinteni, mivel a THM–et nem egy konkrét érték, hanem a legalacsonyabb és a legmagasabb értékhatár közötti sáv megjelölésével tüntették fel. Mivel RN ennek megfelelően úgy vélte, hogy csak a kölcsön tőkerészét, azaz 3359,14 eurót kell visszafizetnie, jogalap nélküli gazdagodás címén kérte 1932,10 euró összeg visszatérítését.

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

  "RN"->"keresetet indított";
  "keresetet indított"->"Home Credit";
  "keresetet indított"->"A hitelt kamat‑ és költségmentesnek kellett tekinteni, mivel a THM–et nem egy konkrét érték, hanem a legalacsonyabb és a legmagasabb értékhatár közötti sáv megjelölésével tüntették fel.."[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

RN madankollu ressqet azzjoni għall-irkupru ta’ pagament mhux dovut kontra Home Credit, minħabba li l-kreditu kellu jiġi kkunsidrat bħala mingħajr interessi u lanqas spejjeż, peress li r-RIPS kienet ġiet iffissata fil-ftehim mhux b’rata unika, iżda b’medda li tirreferi għal rata minima u għal rata massima. Għalhekk, billi qieset li kellu jħallas biss l-ammont tas-self f’kapital, jiġifieri EUR 3 359.14, RN talbet ir-rimbors, abbażi ta’ arrikkiment indebitu, tas-somma ta’ EUR 1 932.10.

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

  "RN"->"azzjoni għall-irkupru ta’ pagament mhux dovut kontra Home Credit";
  "azzjoni għall-irkupru ta’ pagament mhux dovut kontra Home Credit"->"Home Credit";
  "azzjoni għall-irkupru ta’ pagament mhux dovut kontra Home Credit"->"l-kreditu kellu jiġi kkunsidrat bħala mingħajr interessi u lanqas spejjeż, peress li r-RIPS kienet ġiet iffissata fil-ftehim mhux b’rata unika.."[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

RN heeft echter tegen Home Credit een vordering tot teruggave van het onverschuldigd betaalde ingesteld, op grond dat het krediet moest worden geacht zonder rente noch kosten te zijn verleend, aangezien het JKP niet in de vorm van één enkel percentage in de overeenkomst was vastgelegd, maar in de vorm van een bereik tussen een minimum- en een maximumpercentage. Aangezien RN van mening was slechts het bedrag van de kapitaallening, te weten 3359,14 EUR, te moeten betalen, vorderde hij op grond van ongerechtvaardigde verrijking de terugbetaling van 1932,10 EUR.

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

  "RN"->"een vordering tot teruggave van het onverschuldigd betaalde ingesteled";
  "een vordering tot teruggave van het onverschuldigd betaalde ingesteled"->"Home Credit";
  "een vordering tot teruggave van het onverschuldigd betaalde ingesteled"->"het krediet moest worden geacht zonder rente noch kosten te zijn verleend, aangezien het JKP niet in de vorm van één enkel percentage in de overeenkomst was vastgelegd."[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

RN wniósł jednakże powództwo o zwrot nienależnego świadczenia przeciwko Home Credit na tej podstawie, że kredyt ten powinien zostać uznany za nieoprocentowany i bezpłatny, ponieważ RRSO została określona w umowie nie za pomocą pojedynczej stopy oprocentowania, lecz za pomocą przedziału wskazującego minimalną i maksymalną stopę oprocentowania. W związku z tym, uznając, że był on zobowiązany do spłaty jedynie kwoty kapitału kredytu, czyli 3359,14 EUR, RN zażądał zwrotu sumy 1932,10 EUR z tytułu bezpodstawnego wzbogacenia.

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

  "RN"->"powództwo";
  "powództwo"->"Home Credit";
  "powództwo"->"kredyt ten powinien zostać uznany za nieoprocentowany i bezpłatny, ponieważ RRSO została określona w umowie nie za pomocą pojedynczej stopy oprocentowania."[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

RN intentou, todavia, uma ação de repetição do indevido contra a Home Credit, com o fundamento de que o crédito deveria ter sido considerado sem juros nem encargos, uma vez que a TAEG tinha sido fixada no contrato não através de uma taxa única, mas mediante um intervalo que remetia para uma taxa mínima e para uma taxa máxima. Assim, entendendo que só devia pagar o montante do empréstimo em capital, ou seja, 3359,14 euros, RN pediu o reembolso, a título de enriquecimento sem causa, do montante de 1932,10 euros.

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

  "RN"->"uma ação de repetição do indevido";
  "uma ação de repetição do indevido"->"Home Credit";
  "uma ação de repetição do indevido"->"O crédito deveria ter sido considerado sem juros nem encargos, uma vez que a TAEG tinha sido fixada no contrato não através de uma taxa única.."[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

RN a formulat totuși o acțiune în restituirea plății nedatorate împotriva Home Credit, pentru motivul că creditul ar fi trebuit considerat scutit de dobânzi și de costuri din moment ce DAE fusese stabilită în contract nu printr‑o rată unică, ci sub forma unui interval care face trimitere la o rată minimă și la o rată maximă. Astfel, considerând că nu trebuia să plătească decât cuantumul capitalului împrumutului, și anume 3359,14 euro, RN a solicitat rambursarea, în temeiul unei îmbogățiri fără justă cauză, a sumei de 1932,10 euro.

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

  "RN"->"o acțiune în restituirea plății nedatorate împotriva Home Credit";
  "o acțiune în restituirea plății nedatorate împotriva Home Credit"->"Home Credit";
  "o acțiune în restituirea plății nedatorate împotriva Home Credit"->"creditul ar fi trebuit considerat scutit de dobânzi și de costuri din moment ce DAE fusese stabilită în contract nu printr‑o rată unică."[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

RN však podal proti spoločnosti Home Credit žalobu o vydanie plnenia poskytnutého bez právneho dôvodu, keďže úver sa mal podľa neho považovať za bezúročný a bez poplatkov vzhľadom na to, že RPMN nebola v zmluve uvedená ako jedna konkrétna hodnota, ale rozpätie uvádzajúce najnižšiu a najvyššiu mieru. Vzhľadom na to, že RN sa domnieval, že bol povinný vrátiť iba sumu istiny úveru, teda 3359,14 eura, žiadal o vrátenie sumy 1932,10 eura ako bezdôvodného obohatenia.

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

  "RN"->"žalobu";
  "žalobu"->"Home Credit";
  "žalobu"->"úver sa mal podľa neho považovať za bezúročný a bez poplatkov vzhľadom na to, že RPMN nebola v zmluve uvedená ako jedna konkrétna hodnota."[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

Vendar je oseba RN zoper družbo Home Credit vložila tožbo za povračilo zaradi neupravičene obogatitve, ker naj bi bilo treba za kredit šteti, da je odobren brez obresti in stroškov, saj EOM v pogodbi ni bila določena z enotno stopnjo, ampak v razponu od minimalne do maksimalne stopnje. Ker je oseba RN menila, da mora plačati le glavnico, in sicer 3359,14 EUR, je tako zahtevala vračilo zneska 1932,10 EUR iz naslova neupravičene obogatitve.

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

  "RN"->"tožbo za povračilo zaradi neupravičene obogatitve";
  "tožbo za povračilo zaradi neupravičene obogatitve"->"Home Credit";
  "tožbo za povračilo zaradi neupravičene obogatitve"->"Kredit naj bi bil treba šteti, da je odobren brez obresti in stroškov, saj EOM v pogodbi ni bila določena z enotno stopnjo.."[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

RN nosti kuitenkin Home Creditiä vastaan perusteettoman edun palauttamista koskevan kanteen sillä perusteella, että luotto olisi pitänyt katsoa korottomaksi ja kuluttomaksi, koska todellista vuosikorkoa ei ollut vahvistettu sopimuksessa yhtenä ainoana korkokantana vaan vaihteluvälinä, jossa viitataan vähimmäis- ja enimmäiskorkokantaan. RN katsoi näin ollen, että hän oli velvollinen maksamaan ainoastaan luoton pääoman määrän eli 3359,14 euroa ja vaati Home Creditiä maksamaan takaisin perusteettomana etuna saadut 1932,10 euroa.

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

  "RN"->"RN nosti kuitenkin Home Creditiä vastaan perusteettoman edun palauttamista koskevan kanteen";
  "RN nosti kuitenkin Home Creditiä vastaan perusteettoman edun palauttamista koskevan kanteen"->"Home Credit";
  "RN nosti kuitenkin Home Creditiä vastaan perusteettoman edun palauttamista koskevan kanteen"->"Luotto olisi pitänyt katsoa korottomaksi ja kuluttomaksi, koska todellista vuosikorkoa ei ollut vahvistettu sopimuksessa yhtenä ainoana korkokantana."[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

RN väckte emellertid talan om återbetalning av felaktigt utbetalda belopp mot Home Credit, med motiveringen att krediten borde ha betraktats som ränte- och avgiftsfri, eftersom den effektiva räntan i avtalet uttryckts som ett intervall, med en lägsta räntesats och en högsta räntesats, i stället för en enhetlig räntesats. RN ansåg sig endast vara skyldig att betala kapitalbeloppet för krediten, det vill säga 3359,14 euro, och yrkade därför återbetalning av ett belopp på 1932,10 euro, som denne ansåg utgöra obehörig vinst.

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

  "RN"->"talan om återbetalning av felaktigt utbetalda belopp";
  "talan om återbetalning av felaktigt utbetalda belopp"->"Home Credit";
  "talan om återbetalning av felaktigt utbetalda belopp"->"krediten borde ha betraktats som ränte- och avgiftsfri, eftersom den effektiva räntan i avtalet uttryckts som ett intervall, i stället för en enhetlig räntesats.."[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

That claim was dismissed by the court of first instance. In particular, that court found that the loan granted to RN by Home Credit was consumer credit and that the agreement contained all the information required under Article 9(2) of Law No 129/2010. That court also held that the agreement did not have to expressly indicate the APRC by reference to a single rate and that it would be disproportionate to penalise the lender by taking the view that no interest or charges were payable in respect of the loan on the sole ground that the APRC was expressed as a rate within a range of two figures (from‑to).
RN brought an appeal before the referring court and the latter questions whether fixing the APRC by means of such a range is contrary to Directive 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Court of first instance"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The referring court"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Court of first instance"->"RN"[label="Dismiss"];
   "RN"->"Appeal";
   "Appeal"->"The referring court";
   "Appeal"->"Whether fixing the APRC by means of such a range is contrary to Directive 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: Bulgarian

Първоинстанционният съд оставя без уважение този иск. Той по-специално приема, че кредитът, отпуснат на RN от Home Credit, е потребителски, и че договорът за този кредит съдържа всички данни, изисквани от член 9, параграф 2 от Закон № 129/2010. Той постановява също, че не е необходимо в договора ГПР да се посочва изрично с една-единствена ставка и че би било несъразмерно да се санкционира кредиторът, като кредитът се приеме за освободен от лихви и разноски само защото ГПР е посочен в диапазон между две стойности (от—до).
RN подава жалба пред запитващата юрисдикция, която от своя страна иска да се установи дали определянето на ГПР в такъв диапазон противоречи на Директива 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Първоинстанционният съд"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "запитващата юрисдикция"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Първоинстанционният съд"->"RN"[label="оставя без уважение"];
  "RN"->"жалба";
  "жалба"->"запитващата юрисдикция";
  "жалба"->"дали определянето на ГПР в такъв диапазон противоречи на Директива 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: Spanish

Tal solicitud no fue estimada por el órgano jurisdiccional de primera instancia. Este consideró en particular que el préstamo acordado a RN por Home Credit era un crédito al consumo, cuyo contrato contenía todas las menciones requeridas en el artículo 9, apartado 2, de la Ley n.o 129/2010. Dicho órgano jurisdiccional estimó asimismo que el contrato no debía mencionar expresamente la TAE por referencia a un tipo único y que resultaría desproporcionado penalizar al prestamista declarando que el préstamo se considera sin intereses ni gastos tan solo porque la TAE se expresa mediante un porcentaje que se sitúa en una horquilla de dos valores (mínimo-máximo).
RN interpuso recurso de apelación ante el órgano jurisdiccional remitente y este se pregunta si la determinación de la TAE mediante tal horquilla es contraria a la Directiva 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "órgano jurisdiccional de primera instancia"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "el órgano jurisdiccional remitente"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "órgano jurisdiccional de primera instancia"->"RN"[label="Tal solicitud no fue estimada"];
  "RN"->"recurso de apelación";
  "recurso de apelación"->"el órgano jurisdiccional remitente";
  "recurso de apelación"->"si la determinación de la TAE mediante tal horquilla es contraria a la Directiva 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: Czech

Soud prvního stupně tomuto návrhu nevyhověl. Měl především za to, že úvěr, který poskytla Home Credit RN je spotřebitelským úvěrem, přičemž smlouva, na jejímž základě byl sjednán, obsahuje všechny údaje, které vyžaduje § 9 odst. 2 zákona č. 129/2010. Uvedený soud rovněž rozhodl, že RPSN nemusí být ve smlouvě uvedena výslovně jako jedna sazba a že by bylo nepřiměřené postihovat věřitele tím, že úvěr bude považován za bezúročný a bez poplatků pouze proto, že RPSN je uvedena jako sazba vyjádřená rozpětím mezi dvěma hodnotami (minimální a maximální).
Předkládající soud, k němuž podal RN odvolání, si klade otázku, zda je RPSN stanovená prostřednictvím takového rozpětí v rozporu se směrnicí 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Soud prvního stupně"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Předkládající soud"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Soud prvního stupně"->"RN"[label="nevyhověl"];
  "RN"->"odvolání";
  "odvolání"->"Předkládající soud";
  "odvolání"->"zda je RPSN stanovená prostřednictvím takového rozpětí v rozporu se směrnicí 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: Danish

Retten i første instans frifandt Home Credit for denne påstand. Denne ret fastslog bl.a., at det lån, som Home Credit havde ydet RN, var en forbrugerkredit, hvor aftalen indeholdt alle de angivelser, der krævedes efter § 9, stk. 2, i lov nr. 129/2010. Retten udtalte ligeledes, at ÅOP ikke nødvendigvis skulle angives udtrykkeligt i aftalen med henvisning til en enhedssats, og at det ville være uforholdsmæssigt at sanktionere långiver ved at betragte lånet som rente- og omkostningsfrit, blot fordi ÅOP var angivet med en sats, der befandt sig i et interval mellem to værdier (fra – til).
Da RN har iværksat appel ved den forelæggende ret, ønsker denne ret oplyst, om en fastsættelse af ÅOP ved hjælp af et sådant interval er i strid med direktiv 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Retten i første instans"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "den forelæggende ret"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Retten i første instans"->"RN"[label="frifandt"];
  "RN"->"appel";
  "appel"->"den forelæggende ret";
  "appel"->"om en fastsættelse af ÅOP ved hjælp af et sådant interval er i strid med direktiv 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: German

Dieser Klage wurde vom erstinstanzlichen Gericht nicht stattgegeben. Dieses Gericht war u. a. der Auffassung, dass das RN von Home Credit gewährte Darlehen ein Verbraucherkredit sei und der Vertrag über diesen Kredit alle in § 9 Abs. 2 des Gesetzes Nr. 129/2010 vorgeschriebenen Angaben enthalte. Es entschied weiter, dass der Vertrag den effektiven Jahreszins nicht ausdrücklich unter Bezugnahme auf einen einheitlichen Satz angeben müsse und dass es unverhältnismäßig wäre, den Darlehensgeber dadurch zu sanktionieren, dass das Darlehen für zins- und kostenfrei erklärt werde, nur weil der effektive Jahreszins in Form einer Marge zwischen zwei Werten (von – bis) angegeben sei.
RN hat beim vorlegenden Gericht Berufung eingelegt. Diesem stellt sich nunmehr die Frage, ob die Festlegung des effektiven Jahreszinses in Form einer solchen Marge gegen die Richtlinie 2008/48 verstößt.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "erstinstanzlichen Gericht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Das vorlegende Gericht"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "erstinstanzlichen Gericht"->"RN"[label="nicht stattgegeben"];
  "RN"->"Berufung";
  "Berufung"->"Das vorlegende Gericht";
  "Berufung"->"ob die Festlegung des effektiven Jahreszinses in Form einer solchen Marge gegen die Richtlinie 2008/48 verstößt. 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: Estonian

Esimese astme kohus ei rahuldanud seda nõuet. See kohus järeldas eeskätt, et laen, mille Home Credit andis RN-le, oli tarbijakrediit, mille lepingus olid esitatud kõik seaduse nr 129/2010 artikli 9 lõikes 2 nõutud andmed. Ta järeldas ühtlasi, et lepingus ei pidanud otsesõnu märkima krediidi kulukuse aastamäära viitega ühtsele määrale ja et oleks ebaproportsionaalne karistada laenuandjat, tunnistades võla intressi- ja kuluvabaks pelgalt seetõttu, et krediidi kulukuse aastamäär on väljendatud määras, mis asub kahe väärtuse vahemikus (miinimum-maksimum).
RN esitas apellatsioonkaebuse eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtule ning viimane küsib, kas krediidi kulukuse aastamäära kehtestamine sellise vahemiku abil on vastuolus direktiiviga 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Esimese astme kohus"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Esimese astme kohus"->"RN"[label="ei rahuldanud"];
  "RN"->"apellatsioonkaebuse";
  "apellatsioonkaebuse"->"eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus";
  "apellatsioonkaebuse"->"kas krediidi kulukuse aastamäära kehtestamine sellise vahemiku abil on vastuolus direktiiviga 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: Greek

Το αίτημα αυτό απορρίφθηκε από το πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο. Το εν λόγω δικαστήριο έκρινε, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι το δάνειο που χορήγησε στον RN η Home Credit ήταν καταναλωτικό δάνειο και ότι η σχετική δανειακή σύμβαση περιελάμβανε όλα τα στοιχεία που απαιτούνται από το άρθρο 9, παράγραφος 2, του νόμου 129/2010. Το ως άνω δικαστήριο έκρινε επίσης ότι δεν ήταν απαραίτητο η σύμβαση να προσδιορίζει ρητώς το ΣΕΠΕ με αναφορά σε έναν συγκεκριμένο συντελεστή και ότι θα ήταν δυσανάλογη η επιβολή κυρώσεων σε βάρος του δανειστή, αν κρινόταν ότι το δάνειο θεωρείται ότι δεν υπόκειται σε τόκους και έξοδα, για τον λόγο και μόνον ότι το ΣΕΠΕ εκφράζεται με εύρος συντελεστή μεταξύ δύο τιμών (ανώτατης-κατώτατης τιμής).
Δεδομένου ότι ο RN άσκησε έφεση ενώπιον του αιτούντος δικαστηρίου, το δικαστήριο αυτό διερωτάται αν ο καθορισμός του ΣΕΠΕ με αναφορά σε τέτοιο εύρος συντελεστή είναι αντίθετος προς την οδηγία 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "το αιτούντος δικαστηρίου"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "πρωτοβάθμιο δικαστήριο"->"RN"[label="απορρίφθηκε"];
  "RN"->"έφεση";
  "έφεση"->"το αιτούντος δικαστηρίου";
  "έφεση"->"αν ο καθορισμός του ΣΕΠΕ με αναφορά σε τέτοιο εύρος συντελεστή είναι αντίθετος προς την οδηγία 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: French

Cette demande n’a pas été accueillie par la juridiction de première instance. Celle-ci a notamment considéré que le prêt accordé à RN par Home Credit était un crédit à la consommation, dont le contrat comportait toutes les mentions requises à l’article 9, paragraphe 2, de la loi no 129/2010. Elle a également jugé que le contrat ne devait pas mentionner expressément le TAEG par référence à un taux unique et qu’il serait disproportionné de pénaliser le prêteur en déclarant que le prêt est réputé sans intérêts ni frais au seul motif que le TAEG est exprimé par un taux qui se situe dans une fourchette de deux valeurs (minimale-maximale).
RN ayant interjeté appel devant la juridiction de renvoi, celle-ci se demande si la fixation du TAEG au moyen d’une telle fourchette est contraire à la directive 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la juridiction de première instance"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la juridiction de renvoi"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "la juridiction de première instance"->"RN"[label="n’a pas été accueillie"];
  "RN"->"interjeté appel";
  "interjeté appel"->"la juridiction de renvoi";
  "interjeté appel"->"si la fixation du TAEG au moyen d’une telle fourchette est contraire à la directive 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: Croatian

Prvostupanjski sud nije prihvatio taj zahtjev. Taj sud smatrao je, među ostalim, da je kredit koji je društvo Home Credit odobrilo osobi RN bio potrošački kredit koji je sadržavao sve informacije koje se zahtijevaju u članku 9. stavku 2. Zakona br. 129/2010. On je također utvrdio da u ugovoru nije bilo potrebno izričito navesti EGKS kao jedinstvenu stopu te da bi bilo nerazmjerno kažnjavati vjerovnika utvrđivanjem da je kredit oslobođen kamata i troškova samo zbog toga što je EGKS naveden u rasponu između dvije vrijednosti (od – do).
Budući da je osoba RN podnijela žalbu sudu koji je uputio zahtjev, taj sud se pita je li utvrđivanje EGKS‑a u takvom rasponu protivno Direktivi 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Prvostupanjski sud"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "sud koji je uputio zahtjev"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Prvostupanjski sud"->"RN"[label="nije prihvatio"];
  "RN"->"žalbu";
  "žalbu"->"sud koji je uputio zahtjev";
  "žalbu"->"je li utvrđivanje EGKS‑a u takvom rasponu protivno Direktivi 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: Italian

Tale domanda non è stata accolta dal giudice di primo grado. Quest’ultimo ha considerato, in particolare, che il prestito concesso a RN da parte della Home Credit era un credito al consumo, il cui contratto conteneva tutte le indicazioni richieste dall’articolo 9, paragrafo 2, della legge n. 129/2010. Detto giudice ha altresì statuito che il contratto non doveva indicare espressamente il TAEG con riferimento a un tasso unico e che sarebbe sproporzionato penalizzare il creditore, dichiarando che il prestito è considerato senza interessi né spese per il solo motivo che il TAEG è espresso da un tasso che si colloca in un intervallo tra due valori (minimale-massimale).
Poiché RN ha interposto appello dinanzi al giudice del rinvio, quest’ultimo si chiede se la fissazione del TAEG per mezzo di siffatto intervallo sia contraria alla direttiva 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "giudice di primo grado"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il giudice del rinvio"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "giudice di primo grado"->"RN"[label="non è stata accolta"];
  "RN"->"interposto appello";
  "interposto appello"->"il giudice del rinvio";
  "interposto appello"->"2008/48. 

Extracted sentence: si chiede se la fissazione del TAEG per mezzo di siffatto intervallo sia contraria alla direttiva 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: Latvian

Pirmās instances tiesa šo prasību neapmierināja. Tā citastarp atzina, ka aizdevums, ko Home Credit bija piešķīrusi RN, bija patēriņa kredīts, par kuru noslēgtais līgums ietvēra visas nepieciešamās, Likuma Nr. 129/2010 9. panta 2. punktā minētās norādes. Tāpat tā nosprieda, ka līgumā GPL nav tieši jānorāda kā viena konkrēta likme un ka būtu nesamērīgi, atzīstot to par aizdevumu bez procentiem un maksām, sodīt aizdevēju tikai tādēļ, ka GPL ir norādīta kā intervāls starp diviem lielumiem (minimālais – maksimālais).
Tā kā RN iesniedzējtiesā ir iesniedzis apelācijas sūdzību, tā jautā, vai GPL noteikšana, izmantojot tādu intervālu, nav pretrunā Direktīvai 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Pirmās instances tiesa"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN iesniedzējtiesā"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Pirmās instances tiesa"->"RN"[label="neapmierināja"];
  "RN"->"apelācijas sūdzību";
  "apelācijas sūdzību"->"RN iesniedzējtiesā";
  "apelācijas sūdzību"->"Vai GPL noteikšana, izmantojot tādu intervālu, nav pretrunā Direktīvai 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: Lithuanian

Pirmosios instancijos teismas šio ieškinio nepatenkino. Jis, be kita ko, nusprendė, kad Home Credit suteikta paskola RN yra vartojimo kreditas, dėl kurio sudarytoje sutartyje buvo pateikta visa Įstatymo Nr. 129/2010 9 straipsnio 2 dalyje reikalaujama informacija. Jis taip pat nusprendė, kad sutartyje nebuvo būtina aiškiai nurodyti kaip BKKMN vieną normą ir kad būtų neproporcinga nubausti kreditorių, pripažįstant, kad už paskolą nereikia mokėti palūkanų ar padengti išlaidų dėl to, kad BKKMN išreikšta intervalu tarp dviejų verčių (minimalus–maksimalus dydis).
Kadangi RN pateikė apeliacinį skundą prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikusiam teismui, šis teismas svarsto, ar BKKMN nustatymas tokio intervalo forma prieštarauja Direktyvai 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Pirmosios instancijos teismas"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "pateikusiam teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Pirmosios instancijos teismas"->"RN"[label="Pirmosios instancijos teismas šio ieškinio nepatenkino."];
  "RN"->"apeliacinį skundą";
  "apeliacinį skundą"->"pateikusiam teismui";
  "apeliacinį skundą"->"ar BKKMN nustatymas tokio intervalo forma prieštarauja Direktyvai 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: Hungarian

Ezt a kérést az elsőfokú bíróság nem teljesítette. E bíróság ugyanis úgy vélte, hogy a Home Credit által RN számára nyújtott kölcsön fogyasztói hitel volt, amelyre vonatkozóan a szerződés a 129/2010 törvény 9. cikkének (2) bekezdése által megkövetelt összes tájékoztatást tartalmazta. E bíróság azt is megállapította, hogy a szerződésnek nem kellett THM‑ként kifejezetten egy konkrét kamatlábat megjelölnie, és aránytalan lenne a hitelezőt azzal büntetni, hogy a kölcsön kamat‑ és költségmentesnek minősül azért, mert a THM‑et olyan érték megjelölésével adták meg, amely két (-tól -ig) értékhatár közötti sávba esik.
Miután RN a kérdést előterjesztő bírósághoz fellebbezést nyújtott be, e bíróság arra keres választ, hogy a THM ilyen sáv segítségével történő meghatározása ellentétes‑e a 2008/48 irányelvvel.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "elsőfokú bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "a kérdést előterjesztő bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "elsőfokú bíróság"->"RN"[label="Ezt a kérést az elsőfokú bíróság nem teljesítette."];
  "RN"->"fellebbezést nyújtott be";
  "fellebbezést nyújtott be"->"a kérdést előterjesztő bíróság";
  "fellebbezést nyújtott be"->"hogy a THM ilyen sáv segítségével történő meghatározása ellentétes‑e a 2008/48 irányelvvel. 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: Maltese

Din it-talba ma ntlaqgħetx mill-qorti tal-ewwel istanza. Din ikkunsidrat b’mod partikolari li s-self mogħti lil RN minn Home Credit kien kreditu għall-konsum, li l-ftehim tiegħu kien jinkludi l-informazzjoni kollha meħtieġa fl-Artikolu 9(2) tal-Liġi Nru 129/2010. Hija ddeċidiet ukoll li l-ftehim ma kellux isemmi espressament ir-RIPS b’riferiment għal rata unika u li jkun sproporzjonat li min isellef jiġi ppenalizzat billi jiddikjara li s-self huwa meqjus mingħajr interessi u lanqas spejjeż għas-sempliċi raġuni li l-RIPS hija espressa minn rata li tkun tinsab f’firxa ta’ żewġ valuri (minimu-massimu).
Peress li RN ippreżenta appell quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju, din tal-aħħar tistaqsi jekk l-iffissar tar-RIPS permezz ta’ tali firxa huwiex kuntrarju għad-Direttiva 2008/48.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "qorti tal-ewwel istanza"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il-qorti tar-rinviju"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "qorti tal-ewwel istanza"->"RN"[label="Din it-talba ma ntlaqgħetx mill-qorti tal-ewwel istanza."];
  "RN"->"appell";
  "appell"->"il-qorti tar-rinviju";
  "appell"->"jekk l-iffissar tar-RIPS permezz ta’ tali firxa huwiex kuntrarju għad-Direttiva 2008/48. 2008/48"[dir=none];
}