- 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-738/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A v B, C (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Annex, point 1(e) — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Social housing — Obligation of residence and prohibition on subletting the property — Article 3(1) and (3) — Article 4(1) — Assessment of whether penalty clauses are unfair — Criteria)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0738
62019CA0738
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
16.11.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 390/16
(Case C-738/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Annex, point 1(e) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Social housing - Obligation of residence and prohibition on subletting the property - Article 3(1) and (3) - Article 4(1) - Assessment of whether penalty clauses are unfair - Criteria)
(2020/C 390/22)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: A
Defendants: B, C
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(1) and (3) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court examines whether a term in a consumer contract is unfair, within the meaning of those provisions, it must take account, among the terms which fall within the scope of that directive, of the degree of interaction between the term at issue and other terms, having regard, inter alia, to their respective scope. In order to assess whether the amount of the penalty imposed on the consumer is disproportionately high, within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, significant weight must be attached to those terms which relate to the same breach.
(*) Language of the case: Dutch.