- 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-593/22, First Bank: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — FS and WU v First Bank SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Scope — Article 1(2) — Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Terms relating to the exchange rate — Presumption of knowledge of the law)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0593
62022CA0593
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
21.8.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 296/13
(Case C-593/22, (*1) First Bank)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate - Presumption of knowledge of the law)
(2023/C 296/14)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: FS and WU
Respondent: First Bank SA
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is not necessary for the term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier to quote the corresponding mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law verbatim or to refer expressly thereto, but it is sufficient that it is substantively equivalent to that mandatory provision, that is to say that it has the same normative content.
2.Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13
must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier falls within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is irrelevant that the consumer has no knowledge of the fact that that term reflects a mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law.
Language of the case: Romanian
* * *
(*1) OJ C 472, 12.12.2022.