This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CA0070
Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract — Declaration that the clause is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)
Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract — Declaration that the clause is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)
Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract — Declaration that the clause is unfair in part — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)
OJ C 187, 3.6.2019, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
3.6.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 187/6 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona — Spain) — Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Bankia SA v Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)
(Joined Cases C-70/17 and C-179/17) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract - Declaration that the clause is unfair in part - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law)
(2019/C 187/07)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring courts
Tribunal Supremo and Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 de Barcelona
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant/Applicant: Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA (C-70/17) and Bankia SA (C-179/17)
Respondent/Defendants: Alberto García Salamanca Santos (C-70/17) and Alfonso Antonio Lau Mendoza and Verónica Yuliana Rodríguez Ramírez (C-179/17)
Operative part of the judgment
Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted, first, as precluding an accelerated repayment clause of a mortgage loan contract that has been found to be unfair from being maintained in part, with the elements which make it unfair removed, where the removal of those elements would be tantamount to revising the content of that clause by altering its substance, and, second, as not precluding the national court from compensating for the invalidity of such an unfair term by replacing that term with the new wording of the legislative provision on which it was based, which is applicable where the parties to the contract so agree, provided that the mortgage loan contract in question cannot continue in existence if that unfair term is removed, and that the annulment of the contract in its entirety would expose the consumer to particularly unfavourable consequences.