- 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-269/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0269
62019CN0269
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
15.7.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 238/7
(Case C-269/19)
(2019/C 238/09)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Banca B. SA
Respondent: A. A. A.
Questions referred
1.Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, after a term establishing the mechanism for determining the variable rate of interest by the formula ‘fixed margin and the benchmark interest applied by a bank on the basis of non-transparent criteria’ has been found to be unfair in connection with a credit agreement applying a fixed interest rate limited to the first year and a variable rate for the subsequent years, in accordance with the above formula, the national court may vary the agreement by imposing a method for calculating the variable rate of interest on the basis of transparent benchmarks (LIBOR/EURIBOR) and the bank’s fixed margin, in the light of the facts contained in the credit agreement, for the purposes of ensuring better consumer protection?
2.If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, the national court may apply, by judicial process, a fixed rate of interest by reference to the fixed margin agreed for the second year of the agreement or to the fixed rate of interest for the first year?
3.If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding the national court, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, from instructing the parties to conduct negotiations with a view to fixing a new interest rate, without setting any benchmarks?
4.If the answer to that question is in the negative, what possible remedies are there to ensure that consumers are protected in line with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC?
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
* * *