- 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: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2021 — GP and BG v Banco Santander, S. A.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0561
62021CN0561
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
16.1.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 15/21
(Case C-561/21)
(2023/C 15/23)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: GP and BG
Respondent: Banco Santander, S. A.
Questions referred
1.Is it compatible with the principle of legal certainty to interpret Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) as meaning that the limitation period for an action to recover payments made pursuant to an unfair term does not begin to run until that term has been declared invalid by a final judgment?
2.If such an interpretation is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, do Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC preclude an interpretation according to which the starting point of the limitation period is the date of the judgments of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) laying down case-law on the effects of restitution (judgments of 23 January 2019)?
3.If such an interpretation is incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1), do those articles preclude an interpretation according to which the starting point of the limitation period is the date of the judgments of the Court of Justice holding that an action for restitution may be subject to a limitation period (essentially, the judgment of 9 July 2020, Raiffeisen Bank SA, Joined Cases C-698/10 and 699/18, and the judgment of 16 July 2020, Caixabank SA, Joined Cases C-224/19 and C-259/19, which confirmed the former)?
(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.