- 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-561/21, Banco Santander (Point from which the limitation period starts to run): Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo – Spain) – GP, BG v Banco Santander SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Mortgage loan contract – Term stipulating that costs relating to the contract are to be paid by the consumer – Final judicial decision finding that term unfair and declaring it void – Action for restitution of the sums paid pursuant to the unfair term – Point from which the limitation period for the action for restitution starts to run)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0561
62021CA0561
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 series
—
C/2024/3564
17.6.2024
(Case C-561/21,
Banco Santander (Point from which the limitation period starts to run))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Mortgage loan contract - Term stipulating that costs relating to the contract are to be paid by the consumer - Final judicial decision finding that term unfair and declaring it void - Action for restitution of the sums paid pursuant to the unfair term - Point from which the limitation period for the action for restitution starts to run)
(C/2024/3564)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: GP, BG
Defendant: Banco Santander SA
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of legal certainty must be interpreted as not precluding the limitation period for an action for restitution of costs that were paid by the consumer, pursuant to a contractual term that has been found to be unfair by a final judicial decision given subsequent to the payment of those costs, from beginning to run on the date on which that decision becomes final, without prejudice to the right of the seller or supplier to prove that that consumer was or could reasonably have been aware of the unfairness of the term concerned before the delivery of that decision.
2.Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the limitation period for an action for restitution of costs that were paid by the consumer, pursuant to a term of a contract concluded with a seller or supplier that has been found to be unfair by a final judicial decision given subsequent to the payment of those costs, from beginning to run on an earlier date, on which the national supreme court delivered, in separate cases, judgments declaring standard terms corresponding to the term in question of that contract unfair.
3.Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding the limitation period for an action for restitution of costs that were paid by the consumer, pursuant to a term of a contract concluded with a seller or supplier that has been found to be unfair by a final judicial decision, from beginning to run on the date of certain judgments of the Court that have confirmed, in principle, that limitation periods for actions for restitution are compatible with EU law provided that they observe the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
—
(1) OJ C 15, 16.1.2023.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3564/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
—