- 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-645/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 October 2022 — R. A. and Others v Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0645
62022CN0645
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
19.12.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 482/10
(Case C-645/22)
(2022/C 482/15)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants at first instance, appellants and appellants on a point of law: R. A. and Others
Defendant at first instance and appellant on a point of law: Luminor Bank AS, acting through Luminor Bank AS Lithuanian Branch
Questions referred
1.Can Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer expresses the intention to preserve a contract by replacing an unfair term contained therein, a court, after finding that the contract cannot remain valid following the removal of the term found to be unfair, may rule on the issue of replacing the unfair term without first assessing the possibility of annulling the contract in its entirety?
2.Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the national court has the possibility of replacing the unfair term contained in the contract with a supplementary provision or a provision of national law applied by mutual agreement of the parties to the contract in question?
(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).