- 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-170/21: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Profi Credit Bulgaria v T.I.T. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer credit — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 6(1) — Ex officio review — Refusal to issue an order for payment in the event of a claim based on an unfair term — Consequences relating to the unfairness of a contractual term — Right to restitution — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Offsetting ex officio)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0170
62021CA0170
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 318/12
(Case C-170/21) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer credit - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 6(1) - Ex officio review - Refusal to issue an order for payment in the event of a claim based on an unfair term - Consequences relating to the unfairness of a contractual term - Right to restitution - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Offsetting ex officio)
(2022/C 318/16)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Profi Credit Bulgaria
Defendant: T.I.T.
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the national court, on receiving an application for an order for payment and where the debtor-consumer concerned does not take part in the proceedings until the order for payment is issued, is obliged to disapply ex officio an unfair term in the consumer credit agreement concluded between that consumer and the seller or supplier concerned, on which part of the claim brought is based. In that case, the court has the option of rejecting the application in part, provided that the agreement can continue to exist without any further amendment, revision or supplementation, which it is for the court to verify.
2.Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, while that provision obliges the national court, on receiving an application for an order for payment, to draw all the consequences which, under national law, flow from a finding that a term in an agreement between a consumer and a seller or supplier is unfair, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by it, that does not, in principle, oblige the court to offset ex officio the payment made on the basis of that term against the balance due under that agreement, subject, however, to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
3.Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, where, under that provision, read in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the national court, on receiving an application for an order for payment would be obliged to offset ex officio the payment made on the basis of an unfair term in a consumer credit agreement against the balance due under that agreement, that court is obliged to disregard the case-law of a higher court to the contrary.
(*)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
ECLI:EU:C:2022:140