- 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-853/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Poprad (Slovakia) lodged on 22 November 2019 — IM v Sting Reality s.r.o.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0853
62019CN0853
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 36/18
(Case C-853/19)
(2020/C 36/23)
Language of the case: Slovak
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: IM
Defendant: Sting Reality s.r.o.
Questions referred
1.Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted to the effect that factual circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which a natural person who finds himself in financial difficulties and under time pressure and whose intention is to obtain credit for retaining his ownership of immovable property, which constitutes his sole residence, is presented with a contract by a business providing credit which permanently deprives him of ownership of immovable property, even when the wish of that person was to transfer immovable property to the creditor only temporarily for the purposes of securing a credit contract, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
2.Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13’) to be interpreted to the effect that, in the factual circumstances described in question 1, a sales contract on the transfer of immovable property is subject to review by the court despite the credit business’s argument concerning individually negotiated contractual terms if the business refuses to present to the court contracts in other cases for the purposes of ascertaining whether they are pre-formulated standard contracts used by the business in other cases?
3.If the case is covered under Directive 93/13, is the situation prior to the conclusion of the contract also to be considered a relevant circumstance for the purposes of Article 4(1) of that Directive in such circumstances where the defendant business obtained personal data of the applicant without the applicant’s agreement?
(1) OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.
(2) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.