14.3.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/22

(Case C-1/16)

(2016/C 098/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria, S.A.

Defendant: María Isabel Vázquez Rosende

Questions referred

1.Can Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the restitutory effects of a declaration, on grounds of unfairness, of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ in a loan agreement do not apply retroactively as far back as the date of conclusion of the agreement but only to a later date?

2.Is the criterion that those concerned must act in good faith, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect deriving from a declaration of nullity of an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

3.If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, what circumstances must be taken into account in order for it to be determined whether those concerned acted in good faith?

4.At all events, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013 to interpret the concept of the good faith of those concerned as meaning that there may be good faith in the actions of a seller or supplier who, in creating the agreement, has been the cause of the want of transparency making the term unfair?

5.Is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013 to interpret the concept of the good faith of those concerned as meaning that the good faith of the seller or supplier may be assessed in abstracto or, on the contrary, must it be assessed in the light of the conduct of the seller or supplier in the circumstances of the particular contract?

6.Is the risk of serious difficulties, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect [of declaring void] an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

7.If so, what criteria must be taken into account?

8.At all events, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013 for the risk of serious difficulties to be assessed by taking account solely of the risk which may arise for the seller or supplier, or must account also be taken of the loss caused to a consumer by the failure to reimburse in full the sums paid under the ‘floor clause’?

9.In accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 2013, in an individual action brought by a consumer must the risk of serious difficulties with implications for the economic public order be assessed having regard solely to the financial effects of that specific action, or having regard to the financial effects of the potential bringing of individual actions by a large number of consumers?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.