Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62014CN0188

    Case C-188/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2014  — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco Santander, S.A.

    OJ C 223, 14.7.2014, p. 3–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.7.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 223/3

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 15 April 2014 — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco Santander, S.A.

    (Case C-188/14)

    2014/C 223/04

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Referring court

    Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos

    Defendant: Banco Santander, S.A.

    Questions referred

    1.

    Is Article 22.1 of Law 16/09 of 13 November on payment services compatible with Community law, insofar as it allows a bank to apply and/or increase the cost of services by changing the conditions initially agreed upon?

    2.

    Is it sufficient protection for that user that he may terminate the contract without charge?

    3.

    Are contractual terms agreed between the parties that provide the same options as those provided for in the provision referred to in the first question lawful?

    4.

    Lastly, if the reply to the foregoing questions is affirmative, is the notice period of two months compatible with Community law?
    Top