15.4.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/35

(Case C-66/19)

(2019/C 139/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JC

Defendant: Kreissparkasse Saarlouis

Questions referred

1.Is Article 10(2)(p) 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the required information in relation to the ‘period during which the right of withdrawal may be exercised’ or ‘other conditions governing the exercise thereof’ must also include the requirements governing the start of the withdrawal period?

2.If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude an interpretation to the effect that withdrawal information is ‘clear’ and ‘concise’ if it does not itself cite in full the mandatory information to be provided with regard to the start of the withdrawal period, but in this respect refers to a provision of national law — in the present case, Paragraph 492(2) of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code; ‘the BGB’) in the version valid up to 12 June 2014 — which in turn refers to further national provisions — in the present case, Article 247, Paragraphs 3 to 13, of the Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Introductory Law to the Civil Code; ‘the EGBGB’) in the version valid up to 12 June 2014 — and the consumer is therefore obliged to read numerous legislative provisions in a variety of legislative texts so as to gain clarity as to what mandatory information must be provided in order for the withdrawal period to start to run in the case of his loan agreement?

3.If Question 2 is answered in the negative (and there are no concerns in principle against a reference to provisions of national law): Does Article 10(2)(p) of Directive 2008/48/EC preclude an interpretation to the effect that withdrawal information is ‘clear’ and ‘concise’ if the reference to a provision of national law — in the present case, Paragraph 492(2) of the BGB in the version valid from 30 July 2010 up to 12 June 2014 — and the further reference — in the present case, to Article 247, Paragraphs 3 to 13, of the EGBGB in the version valid from 4 August 2011 up to 12 June 2014 — necessarily means that the consumer has to carry out a process of legal inference beyond simply reading the provisions — for instance, as to whether the loan was granted to him under conditions customary for contracts secured by mortgage and the interim financing thereof or whether linked agreements exist, so that he can gain clarity as to what mandatory information must be provided in order for the period of withdrawal to start to run in the case of his loan agreement?

(1) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.