EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0075
Case C-75/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez
Case C-75/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez
Case C-75/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez
OJ C 135, 5.5.2014, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 135/23 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 3 de Ávila (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A. v Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez
(Case C-75/14)
2014/C 135/28
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ávila
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A.
Defendants: Francisco Javier Rodríguez Barbero and María Ángeles Barbero Gutiérrez
Questions referred
|
1. |
Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest? |
|
2. |
Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer? |
|
3. |
Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 … contravene … Directive 93/13/EEC …, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 …? |