- 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-176/23, Raiffeisen Bank: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 May 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş – Romania) – UG v SC Raiffeisen Bank SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 1(2) – Scope – Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions – Supplementary agreement to a credit agreement notified by the seller or supplier to the consumer for the purpose of complying with national legislation – Article 3(2) – Contractual term which has not been individually negotiated – Failure of the consumer to sign the supplementary agreement – Presumption of tacit acceptance of that supplementary agreement – National case-law precluding the courts from reviewing whether a contractual term contained in such a supplementary agreement is unfair)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CA0176
62023CA0176
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/2024/4299
15.7.2024
(Case C-176/23,
Raiffeisen Bank)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 1(2) - Scope - Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Supplementary agreement to a credit agreement notified by the seller or supplier to the consumer for the purpose of complying with national legislation - Article 3(2) - Contractual term which has not been individually negotiated - Failure of the consumer to sign the supplementary agreement - Presumption of tacit acceptance of that supplementary agreement - National case-law precluding the courts from reviewing whether a contractual term contained in such a supplementary agreement is unfair)
(C/2024/4299)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: UG
Respondent: SC Raiffeisen Bank SA
Operative part of the judgment
1)Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as not precluding the assessment of whether terms contained in a consumer credit agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier are unfair in circumstances where that seller or supplier has amended those terms in order to ensure that that agreement complies with mandatory national legislation relating to the methods of determining the interest rate, if that legislation merely establishes a general framework for fixing the interest rate for that agreement, while leaving a margin of discretion to that seller or supplier as regards both the choice of reference index for that rate and the size of the fixed margin that can be added to the latter.
2.Article 3 of Directive 93/13, must be interpreted as precluding national case-law under which amendments made by a seller or supplier to the terms of a consumer credit agreement in order to ensure that that agreement complies with national legislation that leaves a margin of discretion to the seller or supplier cannot be subject to an examination of whether they are unfair, even if those terms have not been negotiated with the consumer.
—
Language of the case: Romanian.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4299/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
* * *
*1 Language of the case: Romanian.