This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0725
Case C-725/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti — Romania) — IO v Impuls Leasing România IFN SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Enforcement proceedings in respect of a leasing contract constituting an enforceable instrument — Objection to enforcement — National legislation not allowing the court hearing that objection to determine whether the terms of an enforceable instrument are unfair — Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion whether a term is unfair — Existence of an action under ordinary law allowing the review of whether those terms were unfair — Requirement of a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)
Case C-725/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti — Romania) — IO v Impuls Leasing România IFN SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Enforcement proceedings in respect of a leasing contract constituting an enforceable instrument — Objection to enforcement — National legislation not allowing the court hearing that objection to determine whether the terms of an enforceable instrument are unfair — Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion whether a term is unfair — Existence of an action under ordinary law allowing the review of whether those terms were unfair — Requirement of a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)
Case C-725/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti — Romania) — IO v Impuls Leasing România IFN SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Enforcement proceedings in respect of a leasing contract constituting an enforceable instrument — Objection to enforcement — National legislation not allowing the court hearing that objection to determine whether the terms of an enforceable instrument are unfair — Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion whether a term is unfair — Existence of an action under ordinary law allowing the review of whether those terms were unfair — Requirement of a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)
OJ C 266, 11.7.2022, p. 4–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
11.7.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 266/4 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti — Romania) — IO v Impuls Leasing România IFN SA
(Case C-725/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Enforcement proceedings in respect of a leasing contract constituting an enforceable instrument - Objection to enforcement - National legislation not allowing the court hearing that objection to determine whether the terms of an enforceable instrument are unfair - Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion whether a term is unfair - Existence of an action under ordinary law allowing the review of whether those terms were unfair - Requirement of a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)
(2022/C 266/04)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: IO
Defendant: Impuls Leasing România IFN SA
Operative part of the judgment
Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow the court hearing the enforcement proceedings in respect of a debt, before which an objection to enforcement has been lodged, to assess, of its own motion, or at the request of the consumer, whether the terms of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier which constitutes an enforceable instrument are unfair, where the court having jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the case, which may be seised of a separate action under the ordinary law with a view to an assessment as to whether the terms of that contract are unfair, may only suspend the enforcement proceedings until a decision has been given on the substance if a security is paid at a level that is likely to dissuade the consumer from bringing and maintaining such an action.