This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0869
Case C-869/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Mortgage agreement — Unfairness of the ‘floor clause’ in the agreement — National rules concerning the judicial appeal procedure — Limitation of the temporal effects of the declaration that an unfair term is void — Restitution — Power of review by the national appeal court of its own motion)
Case C-869/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Mortgage agreement — Unfairness of the ‘floor clause’ in the agreement — National rules concerning the judicial appeal procedure — Limitation of the temporal effects of the declaration that an unfair term is void — Restitution — Power of review by the national appeal court of its own motion)
Case C-869/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Mortgage agreement — Unfairness of the ‘floor clause’ in the agreement — National rules concerning the judicial appeal procedure — Limitation of the temporal effects of the declaration that an unfair term is void — Restitution — Power of review by the national appeal court of its own motion)
OJ C 266, 11.7.2022, p. 4–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 17/05/2022
- Date lodged:
- 28/11/2019
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Spanish
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62019CJ0869
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
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 Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — L v Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U.
(Case C-869/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Mortgage agreement - Unfairness of the ‘floor clause’ in the agreement - National rules concerning the judicial appeal procedure - Limitation of the temporal effects of the declaration that an unfair term is void - Restitution - Power of review by the national appeal court of its own motion)
(2022/C 266/05)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Tribunal Supremo
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: L
Defendant: Unicaja Banco SA, formerly Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria S.A.U.
Operative part of the judgment
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding the application of principles of national judicial procedure, under which a national court, hearing an appeal against a judgment temporally limiting the repayment of sums wrongly paid by the consumer under a term declared to be unfair, cannot raise of its own motion a ground relating to the infringement of that provision and order the repayment of those sums in full, where the failure of the consumer concerned to challenge that temporal limitation cannot be attributed to his or her complete inaction.
