Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/6

(Case C-602/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Articles 22, 24 and 30 - National legislation designed to transpose that directive - Applicability to agreements not included in the material and temporal scope of the directive - Obligations not provided for by the directive - Limitation on the bank charges capable of being levied by the creditor - Articles 56 TFEU, 58 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Obligation to put in place, in national law, adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures)

2012/C 287/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Volksbank România SA

Defendant: Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judecătoria Călărași — Interpretation of Articles 22(1), 24(1) and 30(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) — Interpretation of Articles 56, 58 and 63(1) TFEU — Application ratione temporis of the national implementing legislation — Failure to comply with the obligation to put in place adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures — Application ratione materiae of the national implementing legislation — Additional obligations for credit institutions not laid down in the directive

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure designed to transpose that directive into domestic law from including in its material scope credit agreements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the grant of credit secured by immovable property, even though such agreements are expressly excluded from the material scope of the directive by virtue of Article 2(2)(a) thereof.

2.Article 30(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure designed to transpose that directive into domestic law from defining its temporal scope so that the measure also applies to credit agreements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are excluded from the material scope of that directive and were existing on the date when that national measure entered into force.

3.Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure designed to transpose that directive into domestic law from imposing on credit institutions obligations not provided for by the directive as regards the types of charges that they may levy in connection with consumer credit agreements falling within the scope of that measure.

4.The rules of the FEU Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law that prohibits credit institutions from levying certain bank charges.

5.Article 24(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule forming part of the national measure designed to transpose that directive that, as regards disputes concerning consumer credit, allows consumers to have direct recourse to a consumer protection authority, which may subsequently impose penalties on credit institutions for infringement of that national measure, without having to use beforehand the out-of-court resolution procedures provided for by national legislation for such disputes.

Language of the case: Romanian.

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.