- 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-724/22, Investcapital: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n. 2 de León – Spain) – Investcapital Ltd v G.H.R. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13/EEC – Principle of effectiveness of EU law – Revolving credit agreement – Order for payment procedure – Review of the court’s own motion of whether contractual terms are unfair in the course of that procedure – Enforcement of the procedural decision terminating that procedure – Loss, due to a time-bar, of the possibility of raising the unfairness of a contractual term at the stage of enforcement of the order for payment – Power of review of the national court)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0724
62022CA0724
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/2024/2578
(Case C-724/22,
Investcapital)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Principle of effectiveness of EU law - Revolving credit agreement - Order for payment procedure - Review of the court’s own motion of whether contractual terms are unfair in the course of that procedure - Enforcement of the procedural decision terminating that procedure - Loss, due to a time-bar, of the possibility of raising the unfairness of a contractual term at the stage of enforcement of the order for payment - Power of review of the national court)
(C/2024/2578)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Investcapital Ltd
Defendant: G.H.R.
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, because of a time-bar, does not allow a court hearing the enforcement of an order for payment to review, of its own motion or at the consumer’s request, whether the terms of a credit agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer are unfair, where such a review has already been carried out by a court in the course of the order for payment procedure, provided that that court has identified in its decision the terms which were reviewed, that it has set out, even in summary form, the reasons why those terms were not unfair, and that it has stated that, if the remedies provided for under national law against that decision have not been exercised within the time limit set for that purpose, the consumer will be time-barred from asserting the possible unfairness of those terms.
2.Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow a court hearing the enforcement of an order for payment to adopt of its own motion investigative measures in order to determine the factual or legal material needed to review whether the terms contained in a credit agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer are unfair, where the review carried out by the court having jurisdiction in the course of the order for payment procedure does not meet the requirements of the principle of effectiveness as regards that directive.
—
Language of the case: Spanish
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2578/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—