Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62010CN0602

Case C-602/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Călărași (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2010 — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)

OJ C 89, 19.3.2011, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.3.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Călărași (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2010 — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)

(Case C-602/10)

2011/C 89/13

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Călărași

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Volksbank România SA

Respondent: Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)

Questions referred

1.

To what extent must Article 30(1) of Directive 2008/48 (1) be interpreted as precluding Member States from providing that national legislation transposing the Directive is also to apply to agreements concluded before the entry into force of the national implementing provision?

2.

To what extent do the provisions of Article 85(2) of OUG [Ordonanță de Urgență a Guvernului (Government Emergency Order)] No 50/2010 constitute an adequate transposition of the Community provision laid down in Article 24[(1)] of Directive 2008/48, which requires the Member States to ensure that provision is made for adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures for the settlement of disputes with consumers concerning consumer credit agreements?

3.

To what extent must Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that it introduces the maximum level of harmonisation in the field of consumer credit agreements, which precludes the Member States from:

3.1.

extending the scope of the provisions in Directive 2008/48 to agreements expressly excluded from the scope of the Directive (such as mortgage loan agreements or agreements concerning the right of ownership in immovable property); or

3.2.

introducing additional obligations for credit institutions as regards the types of charges they may impose or the categories of reference indices to which the variable interest rate may refer in consumer credit agreements falling within the scope of the national implementing provision?

If the third question is answered in the negative, to what extent must the principles of freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital in general, and Articles 56, 58 and 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in particular, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from imposing measures on credit institutions prohibiting in consumer credit agreements the application of bank charges not included in the list of permitted charges, unless such charges are defined in the legislation of the State concerned?

(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

Top