- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-483/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena n °2 (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco S.A. v Steluta Grigore
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0483
62013CN0483
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
30.11.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 352/4
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena n° 2 (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco S.A. v Steluta Grigore
(Case C-483/13)
2013/C 352/07
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n° 2 de Marchena
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Unicaja Banco S.A.
Defendant: Steluta Grigore
Questions referred
1.Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?
2.Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?
3.Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?
(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.